Soueid v Dang

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.