Terabond Pty Limited v Tsilfidis [2023] NSWSC 1397

Terabond Pty Limited v Tsilfidis [2023] NSWSC 1397

Leave was refused because the substance of the defendant's proposed notice of motion concerned matters that should have been raised before the earlier hearings, the Court had already given him ample opportunities to resist possession, and the proposed application for access to the property would be futile in light of the existing possession orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Possession of Land / Defendant's Application for Leave to File a Notice of Motion in Court
Outcome
Leave refused to the defendant to file the notice of motion in Court.
Legal Topics
['possession of Land' 'access to Property' 'default Judgment' 'leave to File Notice of Motion']

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 Possession of Land / Defendant's Application for Leave to File a Notice of Motion in Court

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant should be granted leave to file a notice of motion seeking access to the property and continued access until the hearing on 9 November 2023.' "Whether the proposed notice of motion would be futile in light of the existing orders for possession and the defendant's prior opportunities to resist possession."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the substance of the defendant's proposed notice of motion concerned matters that should have been raised before the earlier hearings, the Court had already given him ample opportunities to resist possession, and the proposed application for access to the property would be futile in light of the existing possession orders.

Court Disposition

Leave refused to the defendant to file the notice of motion in Court.

Orders

  • ['Leave refused to the defendant to file the notice of motion in Court.']