Valdemar Ian Valder v Jozefa Wolak

[2011] NSWSC 1612

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Valdemar Ian Valder v Jozefa Wolak [2011] NSWSC 1612

Hearing dates:

20 December 2011

Decision date:

20 December 2011

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

Rothman J

Decision:

1) Application Dismissed

2) Plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs

Category:

Procedural and other rulings

Parties:

Ian Valder Valdemar (plaintiff)
Jozefa Wolak (defendant)
Department of Family and Community Services (second defendant)

Representation:

Counsel
Self represented plaintiff
Ms S. King (2nd Defendant)

File Number(s):

2011/405899

EX TEMPORE Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: This matter has been listed before the duty judge in vacation for the purpose of dealing with urgent matters.

1. The summons seeks the repayment of money said to be paid in error, in circumstances where the plaintiff is occupying the premises pursuant to what is said to be a sub-lease which the plaintiff alleges is invalid. At one stage the plaintiff, being the sub-lessee was seeking injunctive relief against the first and second defendants, that relief is no longer pressed.

1. The landlord, as distinct from the head tenant, is the second defendant. The first defendant, being the head tenant, has not appeared in the proceedings.

1. What is sought by the plaintiff is the return of monies said to have been paid by mistake or received in error. The circumstances of that payment are that the plaintiff paid the monies to the Department of Family and Community Services in the name of the head tenant.

1. I am not at this stage convinced that there is an arguable case for the return of the money but it matters not. There is no application for injunctive relief. There is no application for urgent relief. To the extent that there is anything arguable in the summons, it will be dealt with in the fullness of time.

1. Any interlocutory application, if there be any, is dismissed. The costs of today will be borne by the plaintiff, that is the plaintiff will pay the second defendant's costs of today.

Decision last updated: 19 September 2014