STATE BANK OF NEW SOUTH WALES v RYAN [2001] NSWSC 91

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : STATE BANK OF NEW SOUTH WALES v RYAN [2001] NSWSC 91 revised - 6/03/2001 FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 18383 of 1993 HEARING DATE(S) : 8-9 June 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 28 February 2001

Plaintiff: State Bank of New South Wales PARTIES : First Defendant: Thomas Edward RYAN Second Defendant: Anthony Richard RYAN JUDGMENT OF : Hulme J at 1

COUNSEL : Plaintiff: Mr A Bell Defendants: Mr J Young SOLICITORS : Plaintiff: Minter Ellison Defendants: Leary & Company DECISION : Dissolve the injunction granted by Adams J on 28 May 2000; Declare that the failure of the Cross-Defendants to repay the sum of $500,000 to the Cross-Claimant by 9 June 1999 constitutes a default under the Agreement executed on 17 March 1994; Declare that the Cross-Claimant is entitled to enforce the judgment given on 21 April 1994 by way of the Writ of Possession issued on 10 December 1999; Reserve the question of costs; Stand the proceedings over.

- 18 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

NO: 18383/92 Wednesday, 28 February 2001 HULME J JUDGMENT

STATE BANK OF NEW SOUTH WALES LIMITED v THOMAS EDWARD RYAN AND ANTHONY RICHARD RYAN

HIS HONOUR:

1 By Summons filed on 30 September 1993, the Plaintiff claimed orders:-

1. That the Plaintiff is entitled to possession of the following land:- (a) The land situate and known as "Ben Lomond" Tullibigeal, being the whole of the land in Certificate of Title, Volume 15359, Folio 192 and Volume 15365, Folio 246.

2. That the Plaintiff is entitled to issue a Writ of Possession forthwith to enforce the orders for possession. 2 On 21 April 1994 a minute of consent orders was signed by solicitors for the Plaintiff and solicitors for the Defendant. Order 1 was in the same terms as the first prayer in the Summons. The balance of the document was in these terms:- 2. That the Plaintiff is only entitled to issue a writ of possession in the event that the Defendants are in default of the Agreement and Deed entered into between the parties and dated 17 March 1994 to enforce orders for possession, however, in the event the Defendants do not default the Plaintiff to then consent to order 1 being set aside. (sic) 3. Each party to pay their own costs. 3 These orders were entered on 2 December 1999.