Charara v City First Holdings Ltd [2017] NSWDC 448

Charara v City First Holdings Ltd [2017] NSWDC 448

The Court granted the charging order because the judgment was not stale despite its age, the concerns about service on the third defendant did not undermine notice to Ms Gruezo as owner of the vehicles, the pleading inconsistency did not dissuade the Court given the existing default judgment, the plaintiff appeared self-represented, and r 39.44(2)(b) meant proof of service of the charging order application was not required absent an order otherwise.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Enforcement Application for Charging Order / Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Filed 2 September 2017
Outcome
Plaintiff's notice of motion granted and charging order granted in the terms sought.
Legal Topics
['enforcement of Judgments' 'charging Orders' 'service' 'default Judgment' 'garnishee']
['civil Procedure' 'judgments and Orders'] ['enforcement of Judgments' 'charging Orders' 'service' 'default Judgment' 'garnishee']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Enforcement Application for Charging Order / Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Filed 2 September 2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the age of a judgment obtained more than eight years ago should preclude a charging order.' "Whether concerns about evidence of service should preclude a charging order over Ms Gruezo's property." 'Whether an asserted inconsistency between the claim and the pleading should preclude a charging order.' 'Whether absence of proof of service of the charging order application should preclude the order.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court granted the charging order because the judgment was not stale despite its age, the concerns about service on the third defendant did not undermine notice to Ms Gruezo as owner of the vehicles, the pleading inconsistency did not dissuade the Court given the existing default judgment, the plaintiff appeared self-represented, and r 39.44(2)(b) meant proof of service of the charging order application was not required absent an order otherwise.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's notice of motion granted and charging order granted in the terms sought.

Orders

  • ["Plaintiff's notice of motion filed 2 September 2017 granted." 'Grant the charging order in the terms sought.']