NEW SOUTH WALES COURT ISSUES JUDGEMENT FOR PRIME CAPITAL SECURITIES V/S HARIS PETER ARGEETES, ET AL. CASE

Australia, Aug. 11 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on July 11:

1. This is a notice of motion in proceedings that were determined by the Court in January and May of this year. The motion seeks a stay of orders made on 21 January 2025 for possession of real estate at 11 Walter Street, Mortdale, and that there be a stay of a writ of possession ordered on 20 May 2025 relating to that same piece of real estate. A third order is in these terms:

"The second defendant and I [that is, the two defendants in the case], are granted a stay of the eviction of 11 Walter Street, Mortdale".

2. That eviction was affected today, Friday 7 July 2025, by the sheriff in accordance with the Court's orders.

3. The circumstances of the application are plainly urgent. Accordingly, the Court constituted itself - that being me as Duty Judge - just after 5.00pm following an approach by the two defendants to the Duty Registrar a little earlier in the afternoon. The time is now 6.30pm, and I have heard submissions from the first defendant, Haris Peter Argeetes, who is the father of two children whose family was evicted from their home in Mortdale earlier today.

4. The background to the case is important. The statement of claim was filed on 12 December 2024 by the plaintiff, Prime Capital Securities Pty Ltd, and that statement of claim sought judgment for possession of the land at 11 Walter Street, Mortdale. Judgment was entered on 21 January 2025, no doubt following defaults in the payment of the mortgage. There has been, therefore, over five months for the application to stay that judgment or order for possession to have been made, and yet it is made on a Friday night in circumstances where, despite a number of attempts to obtain the input of the plaintiff, those attempts have failed. The result of that is that I have only heard from one side of this argument, that is from Mr Argeetes himself. That fact, in itself, does not disentitle him and his family to the relief that they seek, but it makes it very difficult to make the kind of emergency type orders that are sought in this case.

5. The principles in cases such as this one are well established. The considerations that a court or a judge in my position should take into account were set out by Johnson J as long ago as 2006 in GE Personal Finance Pty Limited v Smith [2006] NSWSC 889. His Honour essentially categorised the kind of application in this kind of case as falling into two categories, the first one being where the original debt is disputed and the defendant seeks to challenge a judgment on the basis that it is either wrong in fact or wrong in law. That is not this case. I do not understand Mr Argeetes to be submitting that he does not owe the money, that Prime Capital Securities were not entitled to foreclose or that Prime Capital Securities were not entitled to make the application for the writ of possession and proceed with the ejectment as it has done.

6. The other kind of case that Johnson J contemplated, the second category of case, is one where a defendant seeks to refinance. That is this case. Mr Argeetes has indicated to me this afternoon and has sworn an affidavit to a similar effect, although with less detail, that he and his wife do intend to refinance. In that regard, Johnson J spoke of a consideration of the value of the property considered against the amount of the debt. Again, Mr Argeetes addresses that issue in his affidavit, and he provides some documentation in support of it. His affidavit says that the property is estimated to be valued at between $1.75 million and $2 million, and he has produced two bank valuations obtained this afternoon which bear out the lower of those estimates. The National Australia Bank has provided a valuation summary report with a valuation of $1.76 million, and the Macquarie Bank comes up with a very similar estimation of the value of the property.

7. Against that, the affidavit swears that the current debt on the mortgage is $1.4 million. Considering those matters, there would seem to be equity of around $300,000. That is a factor that militates in a very general way in favour of relief being granted. However, those valuations must have been hurriedly produced and loose. At this stage, I do not have a clear indication of the actual debt, and this is where the absence of the plaintiff creates real difficulties. What normally happens in applications of this kind, even when they are brought late and in circumstances of urgency, is that the bank, finance company or private lender puts forward information as to the amount of the debt and recent repayments or recent defaults, which allows the Court to better understand whether or not there is a realistic prospect of refinancing.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/198394f2a387f241129ab1f0)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.