Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v Akle [2014] NSWSC 1314

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v Akle [2014] NSWSC 1314 Hearing dates: 22 September 2014 Decision date: 22 September 2014 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Schmidt J Decision: Orders that the first defendant's cross-claim be dismissed with no order as to costs. An order for judgment against the first and second defendants for possession of the land the subject of the proceedings and for leave to issue a writ of possession in respect of the property. Catchwords: POSSESSION - application for possession of property - defendant trustees do not consent to nor oppose the orders for possession - cross-claim be dismissed - orders made Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ABN 11 005 357 522) (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant) Mirvana Akle (First Defendant/Cross-Claimant) Sarkis Akle (Second Defendant) Akle Enterprises Pty Limited (ACN 083 772 007) (Third Defendant) Representation: Solicitors: HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Plaintiff) File Number(s): 2012/57634 Publication restriction: None

EX TEMPORE Judgment 1HER HONOUR: This is an application for orders for possession of property located at Rosehill, pressed today in circumstances where the two individual defendants, the registered proprietors of the property, have gone into bankruptcy and where the third defendant, a corporation, has been deregistered. 2The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Mr Peter Gnaden, the plaintiff's Manager, Lending Service - Corporate and Commercial on 19 September, together with an affidavit also sworn on 19 September by Mr Matthew Youssef, one of the plaintiff's solicitors. 3Those affidavits refer to the circumstances in which the application for possession is pressed. The property secures a debt the subject of the proceedings, which on Mr Gnaden's affidavit stands at $977,537.287 in circumstances where no repayment has been made in respect of the loan since October 2013. 4Mr Youssef's affidavit establishes that the defendants' trustees do not consent to nor oppose the orders for possession which the plaintiff Bank now presses. The first defendant, Mrs Mirvana Akle, has brought a cross-claim in the proceedings. Her trustee in bankruptcy has indicated that the cross-claim is not being pursued. 5In all of those circumstances the plaintiff Bank seeks orders that the first defendant's cross-claim be dismissed with no order as to costs; an order for judgment against the first and second defendants for possession of the land the subject of the proceedings, and for leave to issue a writ of possession in respect of the property. 6On the evidence, I am satisfied that the orders which are sought should now be made. Accordingly, I make orders in the terms pressed by the Bank today.