Khalifeh v Wenberg [2006] NSWSC 320

Khalifeh v Wenberg [2006] NSWSC 320

Leave for the first plaintiff to represent the third plaintiff was refused due to established public policy, the distinct nature of their claims, and the absence of arrangement for proper representation; judgment for possession on the cross claim was granted notwithstanding non-compliance with r 36.8, as evidence showed only the cross defendant occupied the premises.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Concerning Possession and Representation / Judgment After Hearing Applications for Representation and on Cross Claim for Possession
Outcome
Application for first plaintiff to represent third plaintiff at trial refused; judgment for possession granted on cross claim despite lack of affidavit under r 36.8; costs of cross claim ordered against third plaintiff.
Legal Topics
['representation by Layman' 'judgment for Possession Without Affidavit as to Occupiers']
['procedure' 'real Property'] ['representation by Layman' 'judgment for Possession Without Affidavit as to Occupiers']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceedings Concerning Possession and Representation / Judgment After Hearing Applications for Representation and on Cross Claim for Possession

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first plaintiff may represent the third plaintiff at trial as a layman' 'Whether judgment for possession may be granted on a cross claim without compliance with UCPR r 36.8']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave for the first plaintiff to represent the third plaintiff was refused due to established public policy, the distinct nature of their claims, and the absence of arrangement for proper representation; judgment for possession on the cross claim was granted notwithstanding non-compliance with r 36.8, as evidence showed only the cross defendant occupied the premises.

Court Disposition

Application for first plaintiff to represent third plaintiff at trial refused; judgment for possession granted on cross claim despite lack of affidavit under r 36.8; costs of cross claim ordered against third plaintiff.

Orders

  • ['Application for first plaintiff to represent third plaintiff refused' 'Judgment for possession granted to cross claimant against third plaintiff' 'Leave granted to issue a writ of possession on or after 8 May 2006' "Cross defendant to pay cross claimant's costs of the cross claim"]