Australia, July 23 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on June 23:

1. On 28 November 2024, the plaintiff, Perpetual Corporate Trust Limited, ("Perpetual"), commenced proceedings against the defendants, George Youssef and A Class Rendering Pty Ltd, in relation to a loan advance made to George Youssef on or around 28 February 2024. Amongst other orders sought in the statement of claim is an order for possession of land at [REDACTED], Dapto being the land comprised in Folio Identifier [REDACTED]. Perpetual claims alleged default on the part of Mr Youssef in respect of the loan agreement and sought judgment in the sum of $3,191,968.18, being the amount owing by Mr Youssef under the loan agreement as at 13 November 2024. The amount now due, taking into account interest and penalty provisions, exceeds $3.5 million.

2. The second defendant, A Class Rendering, is alleged to have unconditionally guaranteed the punctual payment to Perpetual of all money owing. A Class Rendering was wound up on 31 January 2025, and so is not an active party to the proceedings.

3. Although Mr Youssef initially appointed a solicitor in December 2024 and filed a Defence on 3 January 2025. That Defence was (by consent) struck out by Faulkner J on 4 April 2025 as it failed to disclose any grounds of defence.

4. On 9 April 2025 Perpetual filed a notice of motion seeking default judgment and possession of the property. This order was entered on 11 April 2025. On 23 April 2025 a writ of possession was issued with eviction scheduled for 18 June 2025.

Application for a stay of execution of writ of possession

5. On 13 June 2025 Mr Youssef sought leave to file in Court before the duty judge, Dhanji J, a notice of motion seeking a stay of the writ of possession until 3 September 2025. Dhanji J made facilitative orders providing for Perpetual to file any responsive affidavits by Monday 16 June 2025, and listing the hearing of the notice of motion for 10:00am 17 June 2025.

6. The solicitor who appeared before Dhanji J on 13 June 2025 and before me on 17 June 2025, Mr Patterson, is the same solicitor who appeared on 4 April 2025 and consented to the Defence being struck out.

7. Affidavit evidence filed indicated that on 2 May 2025 Mr Youssef provided a copy of a contract for sale asserting that there was a purchaser for the property but that a four-month settlement and a 2.5% deposit were part of the conditions of that sale. Perpetual's solicitor raised questions about the transaction because the contract was not unconditional, Mr Youssef had not sought Perpetual's consent to the terms of sale, and the four-month delay in completion meant that Perpetual would continue to incur a lending shortfall, even if the purported sale of the property was a genuine one that settled on 2 September 2025.

8. Copies of emails attached to the affidavits relied on by Perpetual and Mr Youssef indicated that there was ongoing correspondence between Perpetual's solicitor and Mr Youssef's solicitor from 2 May 2025 to 10 June 2025, in which it was made clear by Perpetual that it did not accept the asserted contract for sale of the premises was an "arm's length" transaction, and that it will be pressing for its right to vacant possession, unless certain information is provided about the proposed sale. Only part of that information was provided. Significant aspects of the request were ignored.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1979b8e1f95ddfda688bce60)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.