De Varda v The Board of the Strathfield and District Hebrew Congregation [2013] NSWSC 920

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: De Varda v The Board of the Strathfield and District Hebrew Congregation [2013] NSWSC 920 Hearing dates: 05/07/2013 Decision date: 05 July 2013 Jurisdiction: Equity Division Before: McDougall J Decision: Applications to reopen, to amend, and for trial by jury, dismissed Catchwords: PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - judgments and orders - application to reopen - relevant principles Legislation Cited: Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) Cases Cited: De Varda and Tov-Lev v The Board of Directors of The Strathfield and District Hebrew Congregation Ltd & Anor [2012] NSWSC 1377 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Joseph De Varda (First Plaintiff) Rabbi Dr Samuel Tov-Lev (Second Plaintiff) David Cliffe (Third Plaintiff) The Board of Directors of the Strathfield and District Hebrew Congregation Ltd comprising of 9 members (First Defendant) John Joseph Lowbeer (Second Defendant) The Strathfield and District Hebrew Congregation Limited (Third Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Joseph De Varda (First Plaintiff) (In Person) Rabbi Dr Samuel Tov-Lev (Second Plaintiff) (In Person) D Austin (First and Second Defendants) (Solicitor) Solicitors: Austin Legal (First and Second Defendant) File Number(s): 2011/212996

Judgment (EX TEMPORE - REVISED 5 july 2013) 1HIS HONOUR: The first and third plaintiffs are members of the congregation of the Strathfield and District Hebrew Congregation (the Synagogue), a company limited by guarantee. The second plaintiff, Dr Tov-Lev is (as he would say), or was (as the defendants would say), the Rabbi of the Synagogue. The first defendants are members of the board of directors of the Synagogue. The second defendant is the auditor of the Synagogue. 2In general terms, the dispute between the plaintiffs and the first defendants relates to the control of the affairs of the Synagogue. The specific dispute appears to be whether (as the first defendants say) the affairs of the Synagogue should be wound up, and its assets sold; or whether (as the plaintiffs say) the Synagogue should continue to operate as a place of worship. 3There are before the court today a number of applications. To understand the applications, it is necessary to know a little of the history of the matter.