Hargraves Secured Investments Ltd v Sharpe

Case [2016] NSWSC 26


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Hargraves Secured Investments Ltd v Sharpe [2016] NSWSC 26
Hearing dates:On the papers
Date of orders: 03 February 2016
Decision date: 03 February 2016
Jurisdiction:Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:

Refuse leave to list the Notice of Motion filed by Mr Sharpe on 20 January 2016 for hearing

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – leave to apply sought – leave refused
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Hargraves Secured Investments (P)
David George Sharpe (D)
Representation: Solicitors:
Hargraves Solicitors (P)
Stephen Wawn, Solicitor (D)
File Number(s):2012/41764
Publication restriction:Not Applicable

________________________________________________________________

Judgment

  1. This litigation has been on foot since 2012.

  2. On 5 June 2012, the parties entered into a Deed of Settlement of all of the disputes between them. An Appendix to that Deed was a Consent Judgment dated 6 June 2012, which gave the plaintiff a money judgment and judgment for possession of various properties. At that time, the amount owing by the defendant to the plaintiff was almost $1.87M.

  3. Since that time, there have been numerous applications to the Court relating to that Deed, and to other disputes between the parties.

  4. On 21 August 2013, Adams J made the following order:

“I order that, with the exception of an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal in relation to the judgment of Harrison J of 13 May 2013, that no application, in relation to the proceedings against him, by the defendant is to be listed for hearing without first the leave of a judge of the Court being granted and such leave being determined on the papers.”

  1. On 6 January 2016, Mr Sharpe lodged by way of a Notice of Motion in the proceedings, an application to pay by instalments. He noted that the Motion was to be dealt with in the absence of the parties. Mr Sharpe sought to pay the existing judgment debt, the totality of which was not specified with precision, by instalments of $25,000 each fortnight commencing on 21 January 2016.

  2. He annexed to his application a financial statement which revealed that he was in receipt of an average weekly income of $900, from which income he estimated his basic living expenses to amount to $420 per week. In addition to setting out the estimated value of his home ($700,000), Mr Sharpe disclosed that he had $1,050 in cash in a bank, and that he owned a motor vehicle, household contents and other personal property which were in total valued at $22,000. He acknowledged the existence of the current debt to the plaintiff as one liability, and indicated that he had other liabilities against him totalling $450,000.

  3. On 6 January 2016, a Deputy Registrar of the Court refused the application made by Mr Sharpe to pay by instalments on the basis that “… it is unlikely that the defendant will be able to pay a proposed fortnightly instalment of $25,000 on a weekly income of $900”.

  4. On 20 January 2016, Mr Sharpe lodged a Notice of Motion objecting to the order of the Deputy Registrar of 6 January 2016, refusing his instalment application.

  5. The administrative processes of the Court resulted in that Motion being listed at 9am on 5 February 2016 for an initial hearing before the Common Law Registrar.

  6. In light of the order of Adams J made on 21 August 2013, before the matter can proceed to a hearing on that day, leave of a judge of the Court is required. The matter has been referred to me for consideration on the papers, in my capacity as the Common Law Duty Judge, to determine whether a grant of leave ought be made in accordance with the order of Adams J.

  7. The Notice of Motion objecting to the order refusing the instalment application continues the proposal to pay the judgment debt by an amount of $25,000 per fortnight. There is no material filed in support of the Notice of Motion, nor was there any material put before the Deputy Registrar, which indicates that Mr Sharpe has any financial capacity at all to make payments of $25,000 per fortnight.

  8. The decision of the Deputy Registrar of 6 January 2016, was plainly correct.

  9. The Notice of Motion seeking to challenge that decision has no prospect of success.

  10. Accordingly, I refuse to grant leave to list the Notice of Motion filed by Mr Sharpe on 20 January 2016 for hearing.

**********

Amendments

04 February 2016 - Typographical error [12]

Details
AGLC
Hargraves Secured Investments Ltd v Sharpe [2016] NSWSC 26
Case
[2016] NSWSC 26
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hargraves Secured Investments Limited filed a proceeding against Mr. Sharpe, seeking a declaration of priority over certain assets and the delivery of the same. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred around whether the court had the jurisdiction to hear the application and whether leave to apply should be granted, given the circumstances of the case.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it had jurisdiction to hear the application for a declaration of priority over the assets and the delivery of the same. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the application for leave to apply should be granted. The applicant argued that the court had jurisdiction and that leave should be granted, while the respondent contended that the application should be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction and the absence of a reasonable cause of action.

The court found that there was a lack of jurisdiction to hear the application for a declaration of priority over the assets and the delivery of the same. The court also concluded that leave to apply should not be granted as there was no reasonable cause of action presented. The court reasoned that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant the granting of leave and that the application did not meet the necessary criteria for jurisdiction. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to apply.

The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to apply be dismissed, and the costs of the proceeding be awarded to the respondent. The court held that the application for a declaration of priority over the assets and the delivery of the same was not within its jurisdiction and that leave to apply should not be granted. The costs of the proceeding were awarded to the respondent as the application did not meet the necessary criteria for jurisdiction.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.