Saade v Rahme [2024] NSWSC 645

Saade v Rahme [2024] NSWSC 645

Mr Rahme failed to conduct his defence with due despatch by failing to participate in the proceedings and by communications showing he had no interest in appearing or defending. Once his defence was struck out, he was in default for the purposes of Part 16. The plaintiff's affidavit evidence and calculations satisfied the formal requirements for default judgment on the debt or liquidated claim, and the financing documents supported indemnity costs for enforcement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Application for Default Judgment on Debt or Liquidated Claim / Applications List; Notice of Motion Filed 13 May 2024
Outcome
Default judgment and related relief granted.
Legal Topics
['default Judgment' 'defence Struck Out' 'want of Due Despatch' 'indemnity Costs' 'debt or Liquidated Claim']
['civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['default Judgment' 'defence Struck Out' 'want of Due Despatch' 'indemnity Costs' 'debt or Liquidated Claim']

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

Civil Procedure Application for Default Judgment on Debt or Liquidated Claim / Applications List; Notice of Motion Filed 13 May 2024

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant failed to conduct his defence with due despatch so that his defence should be struck out under UCPR Part 12 r 12.7(2).' 'Whether, after the defence was struck out, the defendant was in default for the purposes of UCPR Part 16 and default judgment should be entered under UCPR Part 16 r 16.6.' 'Whether the plaintiff should receive costs on an indemnity basis and fixed solicitor costs for applying for default judgment.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Rahme failed to conduct his defence with due despatch by failing to participate in the proceedings and by communications showing he had no interest in appearing or defending. Once his defence was struck out, he was in default for the purposes of Part 16. The plaintiff's affidavit evidence and calculations satisfied the formal requirements for default judgment on the debt or liquidated claim, and the financing documents supported indemnity costs for enforcement.

Court Disposition

Default judgment and related relief granted.

Orders

  • ["Order that the Defendant's Amended Defence dated 19 May 2023 be struck out." 'Order that there be judgment in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant for $2,295,551.45.' "Save for the costs prescribed under Part 1, item 5, Schedule 1 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Regulation 2015 (NSW),...