Australia, Sept. 1 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on Aug. 1:

1. This case involves default on a loan agreement secured by a guarantee and mortgage over real property in Strathfield and came before the Court on Tuesday this week in circumstances of some urgency. While the urgency had diminished to a degree by the time the matter was heard, it remained important to resolve the current issue quickly.

2. By an amended notice of motion filed 17 July 2025, Stephen James Moore (the second defendant) sought several orders in relation to proceedings in which TTW Financial Pty Ltd (the plaintiff) obtained default judgment and a writ of possession after Faulkner J struck out the original defence following a brief hearing on 17 April 2025. The orders made by Faulkner J were made by consent after his Honour pointed out some of the problems with the defence as it was originally filed. In addition to striking out the defence, his Honour noted that the plaintiff intended to move immediately to obtain default judgment and granted leave for the plaintiff to apply for the issue of a writ of possession on terms that the writ lie in the Registry for 14 days.

3. Events have somewhat overtaken the orders originally sought in the notice of motion and Mr Moore no longer seeks most of those orders. In particular, the parties reached agreement that an auction of the Strathfield property, which was scheduled for 26 July 2025, should be delayed and that a real estate agent acceptable to Mr Moore will take over the marketing campaign and conduct the sale of the property at the delayed auction.

4. Essentially, at this point, Mr Moore seeks an order that the default judgment be set aside and that he have leave to file an amended defence within 14 days. He also seeks orders as to the distribution of the proceeds of the sale of the property and a number of ancillary or facilitative orders. He does not seek to prevent, or further delay, the auction. Nor does he now attempt to somehow set aside the writ of possession after its execution. He does, however, seek an order that he be allowed to stay at the property pending the sale to ensure it is presented in its best light to potential purchasers and because he says he currently does not have a home.

5. The plaintiff opposes the making of the orders and submits the defences raised in the proposed defence are untenable, not reasonably arguable or otherwise destined to fail. It points to what it says is the unexplained delay in the second defendant acting to seek to set aside the default judgment and to the prejudice it may face if the judgment is set aside.

6. The parties filed a joint court book of 528 pages including affidavits by the second defendant and the plaintiff's solicitor, and three exhibits were tendered including earlier loan and guarantee agreements (Ex 1 and 2) and a new proposed defence (Ex B) which was hot off the press.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1985e68f139b43127c202ea5)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.