Legal Research
Cases
Soueid v Dang

Soueid v Dang

Case [2025] NSWSC 674 27 June 2025

Default Judgment

Specific Performance

Stay of Proceedings

Discovery & Disclosure

Prejudice

Res Judicata

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Soueid v Dang [2025] NSWSC 674
Hearing dates: 20 June 2025
Date of orders: 27 June 2025
Decision date: 27 June 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity - Duty List
Before: Williams J
Decision:
See orders at [145].

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Default judgment — Motion to set aside – where defendant is vendor and plaintiff is purchaser under a contract for sale of land – where default judgment for specific performance of the contract was entered against the defendant on 14 June 2024 – where defendant’s first motion to set aside default judgment dismissed on 6 December 2024 in the absence of any appearance by the defendant – where defendant continued to deal with the property despite being on notice of the Court’s orders requiring specific performance of the sale contract and took other steps to interfere with completion of the sale contract in accordance with those orders – whether defendant asserts a bona fide defence and cross-claim – whether there is an adequate explanation for defendant’s default and delay – prejudice to plaintiff caused by delay – whether an order setting aside default judgment is in interests of justice and consistent with the overriding purpose and objects contained in ss 56-60 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56, 57, 59, 60
Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), ss 66S, 66T, 66U
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 36.16(2)(b)

Cases Cited:
Ashton v Pratt (2015) 88 NSWLR 281; [2015] NSWCA 12
Bajramovic v Calubaquib [2015] NSWCA 139
Brimaud v Honeysett Instant Print Pty Ltd (1988) 217 ALR 44
Dai v Zhu [2013] NSWCA 412
Fiorenza v Fiorenza [2024] NSWSC 549
Hoyts Pty Ltd v Spencer (1919) 27 CLR 133; [1919] HCA 64
J & M McNamee Holdings Pty Ltd v Mungerie Vale Pty Ltd t/as Greenwood Group Realtors [2019] NSWCA 283
Pham v Gall (2020) 102 NSWLR 269; [2020] NSWCA 116
Saleh v Romanous (2010) 79 NSWLR 453; [2010] NSWCA 274

Texts Cited:
N/A

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Laurie Soueid (Plaintiff/Respondent)
Huynh Bich Thuy Dang (Defendant/Applicant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr A Gerard (Plaintiff/Respondent)
Mr N Kirby (Defendant/Applicant)
Solicitors:
Lionheart Lawyers (Plaintiff/Respondent)
EGR Law (Defendant/Applicant)

File Number(s): 2022/180682
Publication restriction: N/A

Judgment

Introduction

These proceedings concern a contract for the sale and purchase of property at 6 Queen Street, Croydon Park, New South Wales, being the land in folio identifier XX/XXX.
The contract was entered into on 2 December 2021 between the plaintiff, Laurie Soueid, as purchaser, and the defendant, Huynh Bich Thuy Dang (also known as Lisa Dang), as vendor.
The contract stipulated a purchase price of $2,400,000 including a deposit of $480,000 and provided for completion three months after the date of the contract.
The plaintiff commenced these proceedings by statement of claim filed on 21 June 2022 seeking an order for specific performance of the contract.
A defence and cross-claim filed by the defendant in July 2022 were struck out in…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Soueid v Dang

Details

AGLC: Soueid v Dang [2025] NSWSC 674
Case: [2025] NSWSC 674
Decision Date: 27 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceedings in Soueid v Dang involved a dispute between the vendor, Mr. Dang, and the purchaser, Mr. Soueid, concerning the sale of a property. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the defendant's second motion to set aside the default judgment for specific performance of the contract should be granted. The default judgment had been entered against the defendant on 14 June 2024. The defendant's initial motion to set aside the default judgment was dismissed on 6 December 2024, in the absence of any appearance by the defendant. Despite being aware of the court's orders for specific performance, the defendant continued to deal with the property and took steps to interfere with the completion of the sale contract in accordance with those orders.

The court was required to determine whether the defendant had a bona fide defence or cross-claim. Additionally, the court needed to consider if there was an adequate explanation for the defendant's default and delay, and whether the plaintiff had been prejudiced by this delay. The court also had to weigh whether setting aside the default judgment was in the interests of justice and aligned with the overriding purpose and objects of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). The court ultimately found that the defendant had not demonstrated a bona fide defence or cross-claim, and there was no adequate explanation for the default and delay. The plaintiff had suffered prejudice due to the delay, and setting aside the default judgment would not be in the interests of justice.

After considering the evidence and arguments presented, the court dismissed the defendant's motion to set aside the default judgment. The court held that the defendant's actions did not justify setting aside the default judgment, and that the interests of justice would be best served by maintaining the default judgment for specific performance of the contract. The final orders of the court included a confirmation of the default judgment, and the plaintiff was granted specific performance of the contract for the sale of the property.

Orders