Pepper Finance Corporation Limited v Williams [2007] NSWSC 1236

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Pepper Finance Corporation Limited v Williams [2007] NSWSC 1236

HEARING DATE(S) : 01/11/2007

JUDGMENT DATE : 7 November 2007

JUDGMENT OF : Associate Justice Malpass

DECISION : 1.Judgment for possession of the land described in the Statement of Claim; 2.Save for paragraphs 12 and 13 thereof, the Cross-Claim is struck out; 3.Particulars of the allegations made in those paragraphs are to be given within 28 days ; 4.The defendant's Notice of Motion is dismissed ; 5.The defendant is to pay the costs of that Notice of Motion ; 6.Any question of the issue of a writ of possession or a stay is referred to the Registrar;

CATCHWORDS : Summary judgment for possession - jurisdiction - mediation

LEGISLATION CITED : Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

PARTIES : Pepper Finance Corporation Limited (Pl) Lydia Williams (Def)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 12191/06

COUNSEL : Mr A. Rogers (Pl) In Person (Def)

SOLICITORS : Kemp Strang (Pl)

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

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MALPASS

7 NOVEMBER 2007

12191/06 Pepper Finance Corporation Limited v Lydia Williams

JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: The Plaintiff commenced these proceedings by Statement of Claim. A claim is made for possession of property at Berowra Heights (the property).

2 The plaintiff alleges default by the defendant under a loan secured on the property. 3 It has brought a Notice of Motion seeking Summary Judgment of the claim for possession. This application was referred for hearing on 1 November 2007 (by Registrar Bradford). 4 Although she did not appear before the Registrar, the defendant appeared in person when the matter was called on for hearing. By consent, she was allowed to file in Court a Notice of Motion seeking, inter alia:- "1. All motions filed by Pepper Finance Corporation be dismissed 2. The Chief Executive Officer of Pepper Finance Corporation settle the matter by way of mediation 3. Pepper Finance Corporation release the property title deeds to the defendant and settle the property matters with the defendant." 5 Both Notices of Motion were heard together. The plaintiff relied on affidavits which demonstrated a prima facie entitlement to possession of the property. The defendant relied on a document which was headed "Notice of Special Appearance" and which contained an affidavit "Affidavit In Support of Special Appearance" 6 After the affidavits had been read by the Court, the parties then addressed on both Notices of Motion. Following the completion of addresses, the Court reserved its judgment. 7 Before proceeding further, I should mention one matter that was raised in argument and dealt with therein. It was a question of jurisdiction raised by the defendant. 8 The bases of her submission are to be found in the Notice of Special Appearance. In my view, these bases are founded on misconception. Indisputably, the Court has jurisdiction in respect of the plaintiff's claim for possession. 9 Leaving those matters aside, it might be added that the defendant, by her conduct, has waived any question of jurisdiction. I shall briefly mention certain of the matters that bring about such a waiver. On 27 December 2006, the defendant filed a Notice of Appearance. Thereafter she filed other documents (including a Defence, an Amended Defence, a Cross-Claim, an Amended Cross-Claim, as well as her Notice of Motion). She has made at least three appearances before the Registrar prior to her appearance today. By her conduct, she has submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court.