Royal Guardian Mortgage Management Pty Limited v Beth Ngoc Nguyen [2011] NSWSC 1086

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Royal Guardian Mortgage Management Pty Limited v Beth Ngoc Nguyen [2011] NSWSC 1086 Hearing dates: 8 September 2011 Decision date: 20 September 2011 Before: Harrison AsJ Decision: (1) The notice of motion filed 5 March 2011 is dismissed. (2) The notice of motion filed 29 July 2011 is dismissed. (3) Costs of the motions are reserved. Catchwords: PROCEDURE - civil - pleadings - strike out; application to - statement of claim - whether properly pleaded - whether cause of action had expired under the Limitation Act 1969 Legislation Cited: Limitation Act 1969 Cases Cited: Lee v Travers [2009] NSWSC 398 Macpherson v Wingecarribee Shire Council (Unreported, 19 March 1997, Greenwood M) McGuirk v The University of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 1424 Slater v Romano & Verduci [2003] NSWSC 333 Wakim v Tadros [2011] NSWSC 308 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Royal Guardian Mortgage Management Pty Limited - Plaintiff Beth Ngoc Nguyen - First Defendant Ian Stolyar - Second Defendant Representation: M Young - Plaintiff D E Baran - Defendants Brangroves Lawyers - Plaintiff Avondale Lawyers - Defendants File Number(s): 2010/105936

Judgment 1HER HONOUR: There are two notices of motion before the Court. By notice of motion filed 5 May 2011, the defendants seek an order that the plaintiff provide security for costs. This motion has been resolved with costs being reserved. 2By notice of motion filed 29 July 2011, the defendants seek an order that the plaintiff's statement of claim be struck out and that judgment be entered in favour of the defendants. 3The plaintiff is Royal Guardian Mortgage Management Pty Limited (" Royal Guardian"). The first defendant is Beth Ngoc Nguyen. The second defendant is Ian Stolyar. The defendants relied on the affidavit of Francisco Gutierrez sworn 1 August 2011. Mr Gutierrez is the defendants' solicitor and deposes that he has read the plaintiff's statement of claim and has come to the conclusion that the statement of claim "has no reasonable cause of action."