Worship Centre Limited v O'Meara - [2025] NSWSC 1248

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Worship Centre Limited v O’Meara [2025] NSWSC 1248
Hearing dates: 13 October 2025
Date of orders: 13 October 2025
Decision date: 13 October 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Cavanagh J
Decision:
Execution of the writ of possession of property is stayed for the period of 28 days until 10 November 2025. The plaintiffs are precluded from executing the writ of possession until 10 November 2025.

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – writ of possession – application by defendant seeking a stay – genuine steps to obtain refinance – hardship grounds – temporary stay granted

Legislation Cited:
Nil

Cases Cited:
GE Personal Finance Pty Ltd v Smith [2006] NSWSC 889

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Worship Centre Limited (First Plaintiff)
Money Renters Pty Ltd (Second Plaintiff)
Brett O’Meara (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Young SC (Plaintiffs)
Solicitors:
Summer Lawyers (Plaintiffs)
Defendant (self-represented)

File Number(s): 2025/00116158
Publication restriction: Nil

REVISED EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

This matter comes before me today as the Duty Judge pursuant to a motion filed by the defendant, Brett O’Meara, seeking a stay of a writ of possession on his family home.
I am informed that the sheriff is scheduled to execute the writ tomorrow, 14 October 2025.
Mr O’Meara appears in person unrepresented. The plaintiffs are represented by Mr Young SC, as instructed by Ms Mirchandani, as instructing solicitor.
In support of his application, the defendant relies on his affidavit also dated today which, it must be said, says little more than is contained in the motion.
He relies on a number of factors as supporting his application being:

He did not attend on the hearing date due to not being properly notified.

He still has a first mortgage of $400,000 to St George.

He only owes $650,000 to the plaintiffs and they want to take possession of a $1.85 million property.

He has approval from another financier to pay the plaintiffs and finalise the proceedings.

There will be significant hardship to him as it is the family home. He is living with his two teenage children. He says one of his children is suffering from mental health problems due to earlier family issues.

He has already paid $200,000 to the plaintiffs in support of the loan.

The plaintiffs rely on an affidavit of Ms Mirchandani affirmed 13 October 2025.
At the commencement of the hearing the defendant sought to hand up a letter from Archer Wealth dated 9 October 2025 but, as it turns out, he has received a further letter from Archer Wealth dated 13 October 2025 and that is attached to the affidavit of Ms Mirchandani.
The background is that on 7 August 2023 the plaintiffs, as lenders, lent the sum of $508,900 to a company run or operated by the defendant, Dance Beats Pty Ltd. That loan was pursuant to a written loan agreement, which is exhibited to Ms Mirchandani’s affidavit. The defendant then guaranteed repayment of that loan.
As the defendant explained, the reason that…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Worship Centre Limited v O'Meara and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWSC 1248
Decision Date: 13 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Worship Centre Limited v O'Meara was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the Worship Centre Limited, the plaintiff, sought a writ of possession against O'Meara, the defendant. The dispute centred around the plaintiff's attempt to reclaim possession of certain premises based on a default in rental payments by the defendant. The defendant, in response, applied for a stay of the proceedings on the basis of having made genuine efforts to secure a refinance and citing potential hardship as grounds for a temporary halt in the enforcement of the writ.

The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant's application for a stay should be granted, considering the defendant's claims of genuine steps towards refinancing and the potential for significant hardship if the stay was not granted. The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the criteria for granting a stay under the relevant legislation and case law, specifically focusing on the balance between the plaintiff's right to possession and the defendant's financial circumstances and efforts to resolve the default.

The court found that the defendant had demonstrated sufficient grounds for a temporary stay, given the genuine efforts made towards obtaining refinancing and the potential hardship that would result from an immediate enforcement of the writ. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the plaintiff's claim for possession but considered it just and equitable to grant a temporary stay to allow the defendant the opportunity to secure the necessary financing. Consequently, the court granted the application for a stay, providing relief to the defendant on the specified terms.

The court's final orders included a temporary stay of the writ of possession until a specified date, contingent upon the defendant's continued efforts to secure the refinancing. The stay was intended to provide the defendant with a reasonable period to resolve the financial issues without facing immediate eviction, while also ensuring that the plaintiff's interests were safeguarded. The court emphasized that the stay was not a final resolution of the dispute but rather a temporary measure to prevent hardship while allowing for the resolution of the underlying financial issues.

Orders