Hajjar v 104 880 088 Group Holdings Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 298

Hajjar v 104 880 088 Group Holdings Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 298

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant identified no arguable basis to challenge the consent orders. He admitted Westpac's mortgage debt and default, consented to orders giving Westpac possession and sale rights, and did not show any basis to avoid that consent. His grievances against 104 880 088 Group Holdings Pty Ltd were preserved because sale proceeds remaining after discharge of Westpac's debt were to be paid into court, and the asserted interests of his wife and alleged relationship between Westpac and 104 880 088 Group Holdings Pty Ltd did not provide a basis to disturb the orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal From Consent Orders Made by Lindsay J on 1 February 2019
Outcome
Summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'consent Orders' 'possession of Mortgaged Property' 'sale of Property' 'setting Aside Consent Orders']
['appeal' 'civil Procedure' 'property' 'mortgages'] ['leave to Appeal' 'consent Orders' 'possession of Mortgaged Property' 'sale of Property' 'setting Aside Consent Orders']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal / Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal From Consent Orders Made by Lindsay J on 1 February 2019

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant identified any arguable basis to challenge the consent orders giving Westpac possession of the Lugarno property and entitlement to sell it.' 'Whether the applicant showed a basis for not being bound by his consent to the orders.' "Whether the applicant's grievances against 104 880 088 Group Holdings Pty Ltd or its Chief Executive Officer conflicted with the consent orders." "Whether the asserted equitable rights of the applicant's wife or alleged financial relationship between Westpac and 104 880 088 Group Holdings Pty Ltd provided a basis to challenge the orders."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant identified no arguable basis to challenge the consent orders. He admitted Westpac's mortgage debt and default, consented to orders giving Westpac possession and sale rights, and did not show any basis to avoid that consent. His grievances against 104 880 088 Group Holdings Pty Ltd were preserved because sale proceeds remaining after discharge of Westpac's debt were to be paid into court, and the asserted interests of his wife and alleged relationship between Westpac and 104 880 088 Group Holdings Pty Ltd did not provide a basis to disturb the orders.

Court Disposition

Summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed with costs.']