Australia, Sept. 6 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on Aug. 5:

1. A hearing has been set down for 13 August 2025, to consider the plaintiff's notice of motion for summary judgment and the second defendant's notice of motion for security for costs.

2) On 26 July 2025, the second defendant filed a notice of motion to vacate the hearing date of 13 August 2025. The motion also seeks orders for discovery of documents. I will refer to the second defendant as the applicant and the plaintiff as the respondent. I will continue to refer to the first defendant as the first defendant.

3) The dispute centres on a residential property in the Sydney suburb of Gordon which I will refer to as No 24. This property was owned as joint tenants by the applicant and the first defendant but is now owned by them as tenants in common. The applicant lives in No 24.

4) There is another relevant property in Gordon, which I will call No 28. It is owned jointly by the applicant and the first defendant and was apparently purchased as an investment property.

5) At first sight, the dispute has the appearance of an unpaid mortgagee attempting to obtain possession of a mortgaged property and recover the moneys that it is owed. In the same vein, the applicant has the initial appearance of a person wishing to delay the inevitable of having to vacate a property and pay back a large sum of money. I was informed the amount allegedly owing is about $900,000.

6) On closer inspection the facts are not quite as straightforward. A brief background is as follows.

7) The applicant and the first defendant were husband and wife. They were married in 1982 and divorced in 2023. They are in the midst of Family Court proceedings to determine their respective matrimonial property interests. The respondent is not a party to the proceedings in the Family Court. Efforts by the applicant to join the respondent to the Family Court proceedings failed.

8) My references to the Family Court are to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1).

9) The respondent is a company that trades in Mauritius, I understand as a life insurance and financial organisation. The respondent is not registered and does not trade, in Australia. The second defendant was the chief executive officer of the respondent.

10) There are three mortgages held by the respondent over No 24, executed in 2006, 2012 and 2015 respectively.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19878b1a11bec5cbb482455e)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.