Legal Research
Cases
Sultan v Dabboussi

Sultan v Dabboussi

Case [2024] NSWSC 683 5 June 2024

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sultan v Dabboussi [2024] NSWSC 683
Hearing dates: 20 May, 4 June 2024
Date of orders: 4 June 2024
Decision date: 05 June 2024
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Williams J
Decision:
See orders at [37].

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Cross-vesting – Transfer to Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) – Where the Supreme Court of New South Wales proceedings include claims by the plaintiff to equitable and proprietary interests in property that is co-owned by the first defendant and his former wife which is the subject of existing FCFCA proceedings in which the wife seeks orders under s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) altering the interests of the husband and wife in property, numerous third parties claim interests in the same property that is the subject of the plaintiff’s claims in the Supreme Court proceedings, and the FCFCA has power to make orders under s 79 binding third parties – Where the FCFCA has jurisdiction to hear the matter – Whether it is in the interests of justice to transfer the proceedings – Proceedings transferred

Legislation Cited:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 79, 90AE
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 132(1)(a)
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) s 4(1)
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW) ss 5(1)(b)(ii)(A), (B) and (C)

Cases Cited:
Comino v Kremetis (2023) 110 NSWLR 224; [2023] NSWSC 32
Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570; [1983] HCA 12
Rizeq v State of Western Australia (2017) 262 CLR 1; [2017] HCA 23
Singh v Singh [2018] NSWCA 30
Valceski v Valceski (2007) 70 NSWLR 36; [2007] NSWSC 440
Young v Lalic (2006) 197 FLR 27; [2006] NSWSC 18
Zhang v Levingson [2023] NSWSC 1559

Texts Cited:
N/A

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Mahdi Sultan (Plaintiff)
Ahmad Dabboussi (First Defendant)
Zam Zam Operations (Second Defendant)
Halal 2 U Pty Ltd (Third Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Morgan Clarke (Plaintiff)
Ahmad Dabboussi (Litigant in Person) (First Defendant)
Solicitors:
Dib & Associates Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Ahmad Dabboussi (Litigant in Person) (First Defendant)

File Number(s): 2021/00347580
Publication restriction: N/A

Judgment

Mr Mahdi Sultan commenced these proceedings in the Equity Division of this Court in 2021 against the first defendant, Mr Ahmad Dabboussi, the second defendant Zam Zam Operations Pty Ltd, and the third defendant Halal 2 U Pty Ltd.
Mr Sultan’s claim against Mr Dabboussi is a claim for damages in the sum of $5,229,350 for alleged false representations, alleged misleading or deceptive conduct and/or alleged breaches of contract. The amount of damages claimed reflects the total amount of moneys that Mr Sultan claims to have paid to Mr Dabboussi for him to invest in particular investments that he says Mr Dabboussi was promoting to him with representations that they would pay a 100 per cent return on capital invested by a specified date, plus the amount of the allegedly promised return. Those representations were allegedly made orally during…

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 Sultan v Dabboussi

Details

AGLC: Sultan v Dabboussi [2024] NSWSC 683
Case: [2024] NSWSC 683
Decision Date: 05 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sultan v Dabboussi involved a legal dispute concerning equitable and proprietary interests in a property. The plaintiff, Sultan, sought to establish claims in the Supreme Court of New South Wales against the first defendant, Dabboussi, who was a co-owner of the property along with his former wife. The property was also the subject of existing proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCA), where the former wife sought orders under section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to alter the interests of the husband and wife in the property. Additionally, numerous third parties claimed interests in the same property that were the subject of Sultan's claims in the Supreme Court proceedings. The FCFCA had the power to make orders under section 79 that would be binding on third parties. The primary legal issue was whether it was in the interests of justice to transfer the Supreme Court proceedings to the FCFCA, given the FCFCA's jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The court considered the applicability of cross-vesting provisions, which allow for the transfer of proceedings between courts to ensure a more efficient and just resolution of disputes. The court noted that the FCFCA had jurisdiction to hear the matter and had the power to make orders that would bind third parties. The court also considered the complexity of the property interests involved and the potential for overlapping and conflicting claims. The court determined that transferring the proceedings to the FCFCA was in the interests of justice, as it would allow for a more streamlined and coordinated resolution of the various claims and interests in the property.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales transferred the proceedings to the FCFCA, acknowledging the court's jurisdiction and the benefits of a unified resolution of the property disputes. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the interests of all parties, including third parties, were adequately protected and considered in the proceedings. The transfer allowed for a more efficient and just resolution of the complex property interests at stake in the case.

Orders