Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Valdemar Ian Valder v Jozefa Wolak [2011] NSWSC 1612 Hearing dates: 20 December 2011 Decision date: 20 December 2011 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Rothman J Decision: 1) Application Dismissed
2) Plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs
Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Ian Valder Valdemar (plaintiff)
Jozefa Wolak (defendant)
Department of Family and Community Services (second defendant)Representation: Counsel
Self represented plaintiff
Ms S. King (2nd Defendant)
File Number(s): 2011/405899
EX TEMPORE Judgment
HIS HONOUR: This matter has been listed before the duty judge in vacation for the purpose of dealing with urgent matters.
The summons seeks the repayment of money said to be paid in error, in circumstances where the plaintiff is occupying the premises pursuant to what is said to be a sub-lease which the plaintiff alleges is invalid. At one stage the plaintiff, being the sub-lessee was seeking injunctive relief against the first and second defendants, that relief is no longer pressed.
The landlord, as distinct from the head tenant, is the second defendant. The first defendant, being the head tenant, has not appeared in the proceedings.
What is sought by the plaintiff is the return of monies said to have been paid by mistake or received in error. The circumstances of that payment are that the plaintiff paid the monies to the Department of Family and Community Services in the name of the head tenant.
I am not at this stage convinced that there is an arguable case for the return of the money but it matters not. There is no application for injunctive relief. There is no application for urgent relief. To the extent that there is anything arguable in the summons, it will be dealt with in the fullness of time.
Any interlocutory application, if there be any, is dismissed. The costs of today will be borne by the plaintiff, that is the plaintiff will pay the second defendant's costs of today.
- AGLC
- Valdemar Ian Valder v Jozefa Wolak [2011] NSWSC 1612
- Case
- [2011] NSWSC 1612
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that there was no application for injunctive relief or urgent relief. The court was not convinced that there was an arguable case for the return of the monies, but this did not matter as there was no application for interlocutory relief. The court dismissed any interlocutory application that might have been made and ordered the plaintiff to pay the costs of the day, including the costs of the second defendant.
The court's decision was based on the fact that there was no application for interlocutory relief and that the plaintiff had not established an arguable case for the return of the monies. The court found that the summons did not contain any arguable case for the return of the monies, and therefore, the application was dismissed. The court also noted that the plaintiff had previously sought injunctive relief, which was no longer being pursued. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the costs of the day, including the costs of the second defendant.
The court's final orders were that the application was dismissed, and the plaintiff was to pay the defendant's costs. The court did not grant any relief to the plaintiff and ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs of the day. The court's decision was based on the lack of an arguable case for the return of the monies and the absence of any interlocutory application.
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.