Rahme v Satouris [2017] NSWSC 1222

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rahme v Satouris [2017] NSWSC 1222 Hearing dates: 11 September 2017 Decision date: 11 September 2017 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Adamson J Decision: See paragraph [14]. Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where plaintiffs consented to orders that proceedings be struck out for want of prosecution if evidence not filed and served – evidence not filed within time – order sought by plaintiffs to have proceedings reinstated –where no explanation provided for series of defaults by plaintiffs – where defendants have proposed orders to reinstate the proceedings – HELD – orders proposed by third defendant granted to reinstate the proceedings and extend time

COSTS – plaintiffs to pay the third defendants' costs of the notice of motion – costs ought follow the event Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 1.12, 36.15, 36.16 Cases Cited: FAI General Insurance Company Ltd v Southern Cross Exploration NL (1988) 165 CLR 268; [1988] HCA 13 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Dana Rahme (First Plaintiff) Gabriel Rahme (Second Plaintiff) Paul Satouris (First Defendant) Benjamin & Khoury Pty Ltd (Second Defendant) Michael Soulos (Third Defendant) Representation: Counsel: J Polese (Plaintiffs) DA Lloyd (Third Defendant)

Solicitors: Kekatos Lawyers (Plaintiffs) Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Second Defendant) Mullane & Lindsay Solicitors (Third Defendant) File Number(s): 2015/300814