Saade v Rahme [2024] NSWSC 645

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Saade v Rahme [2024] NSWSC 645 Hearing dates: 27 May 2024 Date of orders: 27 May 2024 Decision date: 27 May 2024 Jurisdiction: Equity - Applications List Before: Kunc J Decision: Default judgment and related relief granted Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Default judgment — Defence struck out for failure to prosecute with due dispatch – No issue of principle Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) Pt 12, r 12.7; Pt 16, r 16.6 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: S Saade (Plaintiff)

G Rahme (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: J Horowitz (Plaintiff)

Solicitors: PCL Lawyers (Plaintiff) File Number(s): 2022/143387

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT (REVISED)

Summary 1. On 8 August 2018, the plaintiff (Dr Saade) and the defendant (Mr Rahme) entered into a facility agreement whereby Dr Saade lent Mr Rahme $650,000. Both the agreement and the advance of the funds was admitted by Mr Rahme in his defence to these proceedings. Dr Saade now applies by notice of motion filed on 13 May 2024 for default judgment against Mr Rahme. For the reasons which follow that relief will be granted. 2. The Court gratefully acknowledges the assistance it derived from the written submissions and efficient presentation of the application by Mr J Horowitz of Counsel, who appeared for Dr Saade.

Facts and procedural history 1. Mr Rahme made no repayments under the agreement. 2. In due course, Dr Saade commenced these proceedings against Mr Rahme. At lease initially, they were defended. They primarily proceeded by reference to an amended statement of claim filed on 22 May 2023 and a defence filed for Mr Rahme. Mr Rahme also filed a cross-claim against Dr Saade, which raised a set off by reference to amounts allegedly owed by Dr Saade to Mr Rahme in defence to the otherwise admitted debt under the agreement. 3. On 29 September 2023, Mr Rahme's solicitor filed a notice of ceasing to act. The matter came before the Court on 5 February 2024, when there was no appearance for Mr Rahme. 4. On 10 March 2024, Mr Rahme sent Dr Saade this WhatsApp message: "As you can probably tell I am uninterested in the court case and refuse to give it any time". 1. Mr Rahme has since failed to appear at four directions hearings: 11 March, 4 April, 18 April and 14 May 2024. 2. On 14 May 2024, pursuant to one of the prayers in Dr Saade's motion, Registrar Walton dismissed Mr Rahme's amended statement of cross-claim pursuant to UCPR Part 13, r 13.6. 3. Mr Rahme's apparent indifference to these proceedings has continued up to and including today. When the matter came before me last Friday in the Applications List, I directed that steps be taken to inform Mr Rahme of today's hearing. Among other things that were done, Dr Saade's process server texted Mr Rahme to ensure that Mr Rahme had received earlier correspondence and gave details of the time and location for today's hearing. That text was responded to by Mr Rahme with two images which I can only assume were intended to be amusing, but which clearly sent the message that Mr Rahme had no interest in appearing today or in the proceedings at all. The Court finds accordingly, and that Mr Rahme was well and truly on notice of today's hearing.