Arraj v Al-daqaq and Naami [2023] NSWDC 9

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Arraj v Al-daqaq and Naami [2023] NSWDC 9 Hearing dates: 8 and 9 December 2022 Date of orders: 3 February 2023 Decision date: 03 February 2023 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Weber SC DCJ Decision: (1) That there be judgment and verdict for the plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of $195,857.74. (2) Interest thereon at the rates pertaining from time to time pursuant to s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act. (3) That the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs. Catchwords: Contract of Loan – Construction Loan – where monies advanced have not been repaid Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act Cases Cited: Thomas v Hollier (1984) 156 CLR 152 Young v Queensland Trustees Ltd (1956) 99 CLR 560 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Plaintiff: Simon Arraj First Defendant: Haythem Khairi Al-daqaq Second Defendant: Maria Naami Representation: Counsel: Plaintiff: J Pokoney First Defendant: Self Represented Second Defendant: Self Represented Solicitors: Plaintiff: Deutsch Partners First Defendant: N/a Second Defendant: N/a File Number(s): 2021/00364317

JUDGMENT

Introduction 1. The plaintiff is the sole director and shareholder of Checkpoint Finance Group Pty Ltd ("CFG"). CFG carries on the business of providing mortgage management services. 2. The plaintiff explained CFG's role in a typical loan transaction in the following way: "In a typical loan transaction, CFG's role as a Loan/Mortgage/Facility Manager is to manage the entire loan process pre- and post-settlement including: origination of new loan applications; borrower and property due diligence; borrower and guarantor credit checks; instructing and managing panel-approved land values; instructing and managing panel-approved quantity surveyors for construction loans; instructing solicitors, certification and settlement; managing loan repayments; issuing loan statements; managing progress payments for construction loans; facilitating loan variations and restructures; and discharging mortgages at the end of the loan. 1. The first defendant is the registered proprietor of certain land in Yagoona ("The Land"). The second defendant is his wife. All dealings between the defendants and the plaintiff were undertaken by the second defendant, whose grasp of English is superior to the first defendant's English language skills. 2. The first defendant purchased the land with a view to demolishing the existing house and undertaking a duplex development. The intention was that once complete, the defendants would live in one duplex and sell the other. The development was to be undertaken jointly between the first and second defendant. 3. Neither plaintiff had any experience in either building or property development. Neither presented as commercially adept.