The Trust Company (PTAL) Pty Ltd v Romeo (No 7) [2013] NSWSC 1460

The Trust Company (PTAL) Pty Ltd v Romeo (No 7) [2013] NSWSC 1460

The plaintiffs were entitled to judgment for possession because the unchallenged documentary evidence established that Mr and Mrs Romeo executed the loan and mortgage documents, the loan term expired on 1 November 2011, interest and principal were not paid, notices of default and possession were given, and the secured borrowings remained outstanding; Mr Romeo led no evidence and made no submissions to support his defence or cross-claim, and the cross-claim was not pressed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Real Property Proceeding for Possession of Land With Cross Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs for possession; leave granted to use a writ of possession; cross-claim dismissed; Mr Romeo ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs.
Legal Topics
['possession of Land' 'registered Mortgage' 'loan Default' 'unrepresented Litigant' 'cross Claim Not Pressed' 'writ of Possession']
['real Property' 'mortgage Enforcement' 'consumer Credit' 'contracts Review'] ['possession of Land' 'registered Mortgage' 'loan Default' 'unrepresented Litigant' 'cross Claim Not Pressed' 'writ of Possession']

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

Real Property Proceeding for Possession of Land With Cross Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs established the loan agreements, mortgage, default and entitlement to possession of the land.' "Whether Mr Romeo's defence or cross-claim should prevent judgment for possession." 'Whether the cross-claim should be dismissed where Mr Romeo declined to press it at the hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs were entitled to judgment for possession because the unchallenged documentary evidence established that Mr and Mrs Romeo executed the loan and mortgage documents, the loan term expired on 1 November 2011, interest and principal were not paid, notices of default and possession were given, and the secured borrowings remained outstanding; Mr Romeo led no evidence and made no submissions to support his defence or cross-claim, and the cross-claim was not pressed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs for possession; leave granted to use a writ of possession; cross-claim dismissed; Mr Romeo ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiffs have judgment for possession of the land comprised in Certificate of Title Folio Identifier XX/XXXXX and known as XXX XXXXXXXXXXX Road, Elanora Heights, NSW 2101.' 'The plaintiffs have leave to use a writ of possession to enforce the judgment, such writ to issue forthwith' 'The cross-claim is...