Ramzy Sebie v Andy Duong Duc Pham [2021] NSWSC 1433

Ramzy Sebie v Andy Duong Duc Pham [2021] NSWSC 1433

Due to the death of the first plaintiff and lack of a representative for his estate, the second plaintiff's ongoing legal incapacity without appointment of a tutor, no constructive steps to advance the litigation, and proper notice afforded to any potential representatives, the Court determined it is appropriate to dismiss the proceedings for want of prosecution and order the plaintiffs to pay the first and second defendants' costs.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Ramzy Sebie; Second Plaintiff: Rose Sebie; First Defendant: Andy Duong Duc Pham; Second Defendant: Thi Huong Giang Pham; Third Defendant: Robert Sebie; Fourth Defendant: ENA Development Pty Ltd ACN 105235363
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Amended Summons / Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
2018 proceedings dismissed for want of prosecution; plaintiffs to pay first and second defendants' costs
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Legal Incapacity, Appointment of Tutor, Pleadings, Notice Requirements
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Legal Incapacity Appointment of Tutor Pleadings Notice Requirements

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramzy Sebie

First Plaintiff

Rose Sebie

Second Plaintiff

Andy Duong Duc Pham

First Defendant

Thi Huong Giang Pham

Second Defendant

Robert Sebie

Third Defendant

ENA Development Pty Ltd ACN 105235363

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Amended Summons / Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings should be dismissed for want of prosecution under UCPR r 12.7 and r 13.6
  2. 2 Whether notice requirements have been met for dismissal
  3. 3 Whether a tutor needs to be appointed for a plaintiff under incapacity

Ratio Decidendi

Due to the death of the first plaintiff and lack of a representative for his estate, the second plaintiff's ongoing legal incapacity without appointment of a tutor, no constructive steps to advance the litigation, and proper notice afforded to any potential representatives, the Court determined it is appropriate to dismiss the proceedings for want of prosecution and order the plaintiffs to pay the first and second defendants' costs.

Court Disposition

2018 proceedings dismissed for want of prosecution; plaintiffs to pay first and second defendants' costs

Orders

  • Proceedings dismissed for want of prosecution under UCPR r 12.7 and r 13.6
  • Plaintiffs to pay first and second defendants' costs of the application