Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd v El-Sayed [2010] NSWSC 783

Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd v El-Sayed [2010] NSWSC 783

Given the longstanding and unexplained non-compliance by the El-Sayeds and the absence of adequate reasons for default, there was no basis to set aside the self-executing, consensual orders or grant an extension of time. The seriousness and purpose of self-executing orders—particularly when made by consent—was underscored, and the application was dismissed.

Parties
Plaintiff/first Cross Defendant: Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd; First Defendant/first Cross Claimant: Khaled El-Sayed; Second Defendant/second Cross Claimant: Khayrieh El-Sayed; Second Cross Defendant: George Karam; Third Cross Defendant: Byblos Finance Pty Ltd; Fourth Cross Defendant: Toufic Thomas Saadeldine Zreika
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Set Aside or Vary Previous Orders and for Extension of Time (interlocutory)
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed; costs ordered against defendants/cross-claimants.
Legal Topics
Self Executing Orders, Setting Aside Orders, Failure to Comply With Orders, Extension of Time
Civil Procedure Self Executing Orders Setting Aside Orders Failure to Comply With Orders Extension of Time

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd

Plaintiff/first Cross Defendant

Khaled El-Sayed

First Defendant/first Cross Claimant

Khayrieh El-Sayed

Second Defendant/second Cross Claimant

George Karam

Second Cross Defendant

Byblos Finance Pty Ltd

Third Cross Defendant

Toufic Thomas Saadeldine Zreika

Fourth Cross Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Set Aside or Vary Previous Orders and for Extension of Time (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the self-executing consent orders made on 29 March 2010 should be set aside under UCPR 36.16(3)
  2. 2 Whether an extension of time for compliance with those orders should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

Given the longstanding and unexplained non-compliance by the El-Sayeds and the absence of adequate reasons for default, there was no basis to set aside the self-executing, consensual orders or grant an extension of time. The seriousness and purpose of self-executing orders—particularly when made by consent—was underscored, and the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed; costs ordered against defendants/cross-claimants.

Orders

  • Notice of Motion is dismissed.
  • The defendants/cross-claimants are to pay the costs of the plaintiff and the cross-defendants.