Helou v Chahhoud [2021] NSWSC 878

Helou v Chahhoud [2021] NSWSC 878

The deed of loan was not binding on Ms Chahhoud or EPL, as there was no evidence of actual or ostensible authority for Mr Taleb to bind Ms Chahhoud or EPL; nor evidence that either had knowledge of or participation in the loan or its terms. The contractual and equitable claims against Ms Chahhoud and EPL fail. The lender entitled to enforce the deed is Helou Developments Australia Pty Limited against Mr Taleb and the formwork companies. The application by the defendants’ solicitor to withdraw failed for want of a demonstrated conflict of interest. Claims under the National Credit Code were abandoned and dismissed.

Parties
Plaintiff/first Cross Defendant: Fawaz Helou; Second Plaintiff/second Cross Defendant: Helou Developments Australia Pty Limited; First Defendant/first Cross Claimant: Chadia Chahhoud; Second Defendant/second Cross Claimant: Elias Joseph Taleb; Third Defendant/third Cross Claimant: Steadiform Pty Limited; Fourth Defendant/fourth Cross Claimant: Steadiform Holdings Pty Limited; Fifth Defendant/fifth Cross Claimant: Class 1 Form Pty Limited; Sixth Defendant/sixth Cross Claimant: Elias Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Equity Real Property List / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff (Helou Developments) succeeds in part; first plaintiff's claim and claims against Chahhoud and EPL dismissed; judgment for Helou Developments against Taleb and the formwork companies for $602,133; other claims and cross-claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Authority of Agent, Deed of Loan, Specific Performance, Borrower Obligations, Implied Authority, Ostensible Authority, Withdrawal of Solicitor, Conflict of Interest, Subrogation, National Credit Code
Contracts Equity Civil Procedure Real Property Authority of Agent Deed of Loan Specific Performance Borrower Obligations +6 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fawaz Helou

Plaintiff/first Cross Defendant

Helou Developments Australia Pty Limited

Second Plaintiff/second Cross Defendant

Chadia Chahhoud

First Defendant/first Cross Claimant

Elias Joseph Taleb

Second Defendant/second Cross Claimant

Steadiform Pty Limited

Third Defendant/third Cross Claimant

Steadiform Holdings Pty Limited

Fourth Defendant/fourth Cross Claimant

Class 1 Form Pty Limited

Fifth Defendant/fifth Cross Claimant

Elias Pty Limited

Sixth Defendant/sixth Cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Equity Real Property List / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Taleb had authority to bind Ms Chahhoud and EPL to the deed of loan or any earlier oral agreement
  2. 2 Whether the loan agreement is enforceable against Ms Chahhoud or EPL
  3. 3 Whether equitable subrogation is available against Ms Chahhoud in respect of the loan funds used for the purchase of property

Ratio Decidendi

The deed of loan was not binding on Ms Chahhoud or EPL, as there was no evidence of actual or ostensible authority for Mr Taleb to bind Ms Chahhoud or EPL; nor evidence that either had knowledge of or participation in the loan or its terms. The contractual and equitable claims against Ms Chahhoud and EPL fail. The lender entitled to enforce the deed is Helou Developments Australia Pty Limited against Mr Taleb and the formwork companies. The application by the defendants’ solicitor to withdraw failed for want of a demonstrated conflict of interest. Claims under the National Credit Code were abandoned and dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff (Helou Developments) succeeds in part; first plaintiff's claim and claims against Chahhoud and EPL dismissed; judgment for Helou Developments against Taleb and the formwork companies for $602,133; other claims and cross-claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Order that there be judgment in favour of the second plaintiff against each of the second, third, fourth and fifth defendants in the sum of $602,133.
  • Order that the first plaintiff's claim be dismissed.