N & M Investments/Properties v Bao [2020] NSWSC 202

N & M Investments/Properties v Bao [2020] NSWSC 202

The Consent Judgment should be entered because the defendant had signed it and understood its implications, the self-executing consent orders permitted judgment after 29 February 2020, there had been no repayment of principal or interest, the debt most likely exceeded the value of the property, and the informal request for delay based on Coronavirus travel difficulties, removal of belongings, possible refinancing, or a possible relative-funded payment had no merit and would further prejudice the plaintiff.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Mortgage Possession Proceedings / Entry of Consent Judgment After Expiry of Self Executing Consent Orders; Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment for Possession Was Before the Court
Outcome
Consent Judgment entered for the plaintiff for possession, with leave to issue a writ for possession forthwith.
Legal Topics
['self Executing Consent Orders' 'consent Judgment' 'mortgagee Possession' 'default Notice' 'unrepresented Litigants']
['judgments and Orders' 'mortgages and Securities' 'civil Procedure'] ['self Executing Consent Orders' 'consent Judgment' 'mortgagee Possession' 'default Notice' 'unrepresented Litigants']

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

Mortgage Possession Proceedings / Entry of Consent Judgment After Expiry of Self Executing Consent Orders; Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment for Possession Was Before the Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Consent Judgment for possession should be entered after the defendant failed to sell or refinance the property by 29 February 2020 under the self-executing consent orders' "Whether entry of judgment or issue of a writ for possession should be delayed because the defendant and her husband were in China, wished to remove belongings, and asserted possible refinancing or funds from a relative's property sale"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Consent Judgment should be entered because the defendant had signed it and understood its implications, the self-executing consent orders permitted judgment after 29 February 2020, there had been no repayment of principal or interest, the debt most likely exceeded the value of the property, and the informal request for delay based on Coronavirus travel difficulties, removal of belongings, possible refinancing, or a possible relative-funded payment had no merit and would further prejudice the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Consent Judgment entered for the plaintiff for possession, with leave to issue a writ for possession forthwith.

Orders

  • ['Judgment is entered in favour of the Plaintiff for possession of the whole of the land described in folio identifier 12/SP936 being the land situated at and known as Unit 12, 55 Wolseley Road, Point Piper in the State of New South Wales ("the Land").' 'The Plaintiff is granted leave to issue a writ for possession...