Su v Kamal

In this case, the plaintiff, Haiyong Su, initiated proceedings for the enforcement of a loan against several defendants, including the sixth defendant, 5 Blackman Cres Macquarie Pty Ltd. The plaintiff initially sought possession of two properties owned by the sixth defendant in Macquarie, Australian Capital Territory. The proceedings have now been narrowed down to the plaintiff and the sixth defendant, with the properties having been sold and the proceeds held in Court since November of the previous year. The case revolves around the plaintiff's alleged failure to comply with a court order to produce discoverable documents, as well as the plaintiff's non-appearance on multiple occasions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff had adequately complied with the court order to produce discoverable documents and if any further action should be taken against the plaintiff for their non-compliance. The court also had to consider the appropriate remedy for the plaintiff's non-appearance on multiple occasions.

In determining the appropriate remedy, the court considered the principles set out in the case of Talada Investments v Rivera Scaffolding [2017] ACTSC 160 and the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT). The court found that the plaintiff had not adequately complied with the order to produce discoverable documents and that there were documents which had not been discovered, including the solicitor's file and earlier loans to Mr. Noumeir. The court decided to give the plaintiff one final opportunity to provide proper compliance with the court's order by making further disclosure within 14 days. The court emphasised that this would be a "last chance" order and that if the required documents were not discovered, a proper explanation should be provided. The show cause hearing will remain open depending on the further discovery given within the next 14 days. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay the sixth defendant's costs for the matters determined.

In summary, the court found that the plaintiff had not adequately complied with the court order to produce discoverable documents and granted the plaintiff one final opportunity to provide proper compliance within 14 days. The court emphasised that this would be a "last chance" order and that if the required documents were not discovered, a proper explanation should be provided. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay the sixth defendant's costs for the matters determined.