Leedman v Chahhoud [2024] NSWSC 1284

Leedman v Chahhoud [2024] NSWSC 1284

The deed executed on 16 June 2017 created a binding, enforceable equitable charge over the Peak View property in favour of the plaintiffs. The first defendant, by signing the deed, objectively manifested an intention to be bound. The evidence did not demonstrate duress, undue influence, or unconscionable conduct by the plaintiffs or on their behalf, nor was the first defendant a volunteer so as to attract 'special wives equity'. The plaintiffs had neither actual nor constructive knowledge of any special disadvantage suffered by the first defendant. The deed was not unjust, and statutory provisions (Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW), ASIC Act ss 12CA, 12CB) did not apply or provided no...

Parties
First Plaintiff: Kim Leedman; Second Plaintiff: Anita Leedman; Third Plaintiff: Trilam Developments Pty Ltd (ACN 130 367 412); First Defendant: Chadia Chahhoud; Second Defendant: Elias Taleb; Third Defendant: Fawaz Helou; Fourth Defendant: Ozem Kassem (as liquidator of Class 1 Form Pty Ltd)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Equity Real Property List / Principal Judgment After Final Hearing
Outcome
Orders made in favour of the plaintiffs for enforcement of equitable charge and judicial sale; cross-claim by first defendant dismissed.
Legal Topics
Equitable Charges, Enforceability of Equitable Charges, Order for Judicial Sale, Formation of Contract, Intention to Be Bound, Duress, Undue Influence, Yerkey V Jones Principle, Unconscionable Conduct, Unjust Contracts, Jurisdiction/governing Law Clause
Equity Contracts Property Equitable Charges Enforceability of Equitable Charges Order for Judicial Sale Formation of Contract Intention to Be Bound +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 10 Authorities cited 38 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kim Leedman

First Plaintiff

Anita Leedman

Second Plaintiff

Trilam Developments Pty Ltd (ACN 130 367 412)

Third Plaintiff

Chadia Chahhoud

First Defendant

Elias Taleb

Second Defendant

Fawaz Helou

Third Defendant

Ozem Kassem (as liquidator of Class 1 Form Pty Ltd)

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Real Property List / Principal Judgment After Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deed dated 16 June 2017 is enforceable against the first defendant
  2. 2 Whether the deed created an equitable charge over the Peak View property
  3. 3 Whether the first defendant’s execution of the deed is void or voidable due to duress, undue influence, unconscionability, or unjustness under statutory or equitable principles

Ratio Decidendi

The deed executed on 16 June 2017 created a binding, enforceable equitable charge over the Peak View property in favour of the plaintiffs. The first defendant, by signing the deed, objectively manifested an intention to be bound. The evidence did not demonstrate duress, undue influence, or unconscionable conduct by the plaintiffs or on their behalf, nor was the first defendant a volunteer so as to attract 'special wives equity'. The plaintiffs had neither actual nor constructive knowledge of any special disadvantage suffered by the first defendant. The deed was not unjust, and statutory provisions (Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW), ASIC Act ss 12CA, 12CB) did not apply or provided no...

Court Disposition

Orders made in favour of the plaintiffs for enforcement of equitable charge and judicial sale; cross-claim by first defendant dismissed.

Orders

  • Declare the plaintiffs have an equitable charge over the Peak View property.
  • Order judicial sale of the Peak View property.