Di Liristi v Matautia Developments Pty Ltd (No 7) [2021] NSWSC 760

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Di Liristi v Matautia Developments Pty Ltd (No 7) [2021] NSWSC 760 Hearing dates: 23 June 2021 Date of orders: 23 June 2021 Decision date: 23 June 2021 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Cavanagh J Decision: 1) Judgment for the First Defendant on the First Defendant's cross-claim against the plaintiff in the sum of $311,389.00. 2) Plaintiff to pay the Defendants' costs. 3) Order that the proceedings be transferred to the Tribunal for the making of an order for termination of the residential tenancy agreement dated 7 June 2019 and possession of the premises at 62 Kelly Street, Austral in accordance with the declarations of the Court made on 11 June 2021. Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Damages — self-represented litigant — Application to disqualify — adjournment application – stay application — application to re-open Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) Cases Cited: Di Liristi v Matautia Developments Pty Ltd (No 6) [2021] NSWSC 663 Category: Consequential orders Parties: Antonio Di Liristi (Plaintiff) Matautia Developments Pty Ltd (First Defendant) Brian Garnet Wheaton (Fourth Defendant) Representation: Counsel: A Avery-Williams (First and Fourth Defendants)

Solicitors: Plaintiff (Self Represented) Centurion Lawyers (First and Fourth Defendants) File Number(s): 2020/71955 Publication restriction: Nil

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT (REVISED) 1. This matter comes before me today for the purposes identified in paragraph [205] of my judgment of 11 June 2021 [1] . Reference should be made to that decision for a proper understanding of this judgment. 2. As I indicated in paragraph [205], in final submissions the defendants made a submission that assessment of damages should await the actual remediation of the land by the defendants. This suggestion had not previously been foreshadowed on behalf of the defendants. There was no application to split the hearing. There was no application that I should only make the declarations sought and stand over the damages issues for another time. 3. However, as I indicated in my judgment of 11 June 2021, I wished to ensure that there was no agreement or discussion between the parties which might have resulted in the case being conducted on damages in a certain way. 4. At the commencement of today's hearing, Mr Di Liristi foreshadowed that he wished to make four applications; as it turned out it was really five. I will deal with each of those applications. However, in terms of why the matter was again listed before me today, Ms Avery-Williams, who again appeared on behalf of the first and fourth defendants, informed me that there was no discussion, statement or agreement during the course of the hearing that any damages issues would be deferred for final determination to a later date. 5. Mr Di Liristi also stated that there was no discussion about what the defendants proposed in their final submissions. 6. It follows that nothing that occurred during the running of the case was influenced by or affected by what the first and fourth defendants submitted should happen with damages during their final submissions. 7. The case was run and concluded on all issues. All parties were given an opportunity to adduce the evidence that they wished to adduce, subject of course to my rulings on objections and my rulings on aspects of the evidence. In particular, Mr David Whitting, on whom the defendants rely for the purposes of their damages claim, prepared two affidavits and was extensively cross-examined by the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not ask Mr Whitting any questions about paragraph 56 of his affidavit of 10 December 2020. Nor did the plaintiff raise any issue in respect of the quotes attached to the affidavit. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that there is no reason why the judgment should not now be finalised on all issues. 8. I will now deal with the plaintiff's applications made today orally during the course of argument.