Australian Lending and Finance Pty Ltd (in liq) v Daoud - [2024] NSWSC 1014 - NSWSC 2024 case summary — Zoe

NSWNSWSC

Australian Lending and Finance Pty Ltd (in liq) v Daoud

[2024] NSWSC 1014

Supreme Court of NSW|2024-08-09|Before: Pike J

View original source

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Supreme Court of NSW

Decision date

2024-08-09

Before

Pike J

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Judgment (13 paragraphs)

[1]

Introduction

In or about February 2024, $227,437.54 was paid into Court. The money represents the net proceeds of the sale of a property formerly owned by the first and second defendants (the Daouds) and located at Rex Road, Georges Hall, NSW (Rex Road Property).
These reasons deal with who is to receive this money.
The plaintiff (ALF) by its amended summons contends that the entire amount should be paid to it.
The sixth defendant (DebtCo) filed a notice of motion dated 5 April 2024, contending that the money should be paid in the following priority: 1. DebtCo; then 2. to the fourth defendant (Adbri); then 3. to the fifth defendant (Hy-Tec); and 4. the balance of the monies to ALF.
These proceedings were heard by me on 9 August 2024. Mr R Notley appeared for ALF, Mr SC Fisher for DebtCo and Ms K Kalkman (solicitor) for Adbri and Hy-Tec. At the commencement of the hearing, Ms Kalkman informed the Court that Adbri and Hy-Tec neither consented nor opposed the relief sought in the amended summons and DebtCo's notice of motion and would only wish to be heard if any other party sought an adverse costs order against Adbri and/or Hy-Tec.
Part way through the hearing, I was informed that ALF and DebtCo had reached agreement on DebtCo's notice of motion and by consent of those parties, I made orders dismissing the motion and ordering DebtCo to pay ALF's costs of the motion in the agreed sum of $7,500.
As a result, all that remained to determine in terms of primary relief was whether I am satisfied that the orders sought by ALF should be made. These reasons deal with that issue.
For the reasons set out below, I am satisfied that the orders sought should be made.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Mr Notley indicated that if the Court was satisfied that the orders sought by ALF should be made, he also sought an order that Adbri and Hy-Tec pay ALF's costs of the proceedings. Ms Kalkman opposed any such order. In the interests of efficiency, I heard submissions on this and I determine costs at the conclusion of these reasons.

[4]

ALF's position

ALF was formerly known as DCF No. 1 Pty Limited from 7 October 2015 to 4 June 2018.
On 8 December 2023, it was placed into provisional liquidation and Mr Darren Vardy (Mr Vardy) was appointed as provisional liquidator. On 22 February 2024, it was placed into liquidation by order of the Federal Court and Mr Vardy was appointed as liquidator.
On or about 13 July 2016: 1. ALF as lender entered into a facility agreement (Facility Agreement) with D&D Properties Australia Pty Limited as trustee for the D&D Property Trust as borrower (D&D); 2. ALF entered into a deed of guarantee with, inter alia, the Daouds with respect to the first borrower's obligations under the Facility Agreement (Deed of Guarantee); and 3. four mortgages were granted to ALF as security for D&D's obligations under the Facility Agreement and the guarantors' obligations under the Deed of Guarantee, being relevantly: 1. over a property at Simpson Street, Auburn (Simpson Street Property)- which was subsequently registered; 2. over the Rex Road Property - which was not registered (Rex Road Mortgage); 3. over a property at Chisholm Road, Auburn (Chisholm Road Property) - which was not registered; and 4. over a property at Gordon Road, Auburn (Gordon Road Property) - which was subsequently registered.
Item 2 of the Schedule to the Deed of Guarantee, records that the Rex Road Mortgage was granted by the Daouds. The other mortgages were granted by other parties - either D&D as borrower or the other guarantors.
Pursuant to the Rex Road Mortgage the Daouds mortgaged to ALF all of their estate and interest in the Rex Road Property and covenanted with ALF that the provisions set out in the memorandum with registered dealing number AG 588734 (Memorandum) were incorporated into the Rex Road Mortgage. The terms of that Memorandum were in a relatively standard form. They relevantly included: 1. pursuant to clause 2.1, the Daouds charged the "Secured Assets" to ALF for payment of the "Secured Money" and to secure performance of the obligations owed by the Daouds to ALF; 2. pursuant to clause 2.3, the Rex Road Mortgage secured payment of the "Secured Money" and the Daouds were obliged to pay to ALF the "Secured Money" on the date agreed between the parties or, if there was no agreement, on demand; 3. clause 13 defined "Secured Assets" to mean, inter alia, the Rex Road Property, any contract or agreement in relation to the Rex Road Property (including any agreement for sale) and the right of the Daouds to receive any money in respect of the Rex Road Property; 4. clause 13 defined "Secured Money" to mean all money which directly, indirectly, contingently or otherwise at any time is or becomes due by the Daouds (whether alone or not) to ALF for any reason; 5. clause 10.1 made it an "Event of Default" under the Rex Road Mortgage if any indebtedness or obligation of the Daouds to any person, including ALF, was not paid, met or satisfied when due; 6. clause 10.2 permitted ALF, upon an "Event of Default", to, inter alia, demand and require immediate payment of the "Secured Money" and exercise any right, power, or privilege conferred by law, equity or the Rex Road Mortgage; 7. clause 10.9 permitted ALF to exercise any of the powers under the Rex Road Mortgage whether or not in conjunction with any other property and despite any variation or partial discharge or other dealing with the Rex Road Mortgage or any other security for the Secured Money; and 8. clause 12.1 required the Daouds to pay ALF's costs, charges and expenses in connection with any exercise of its rights, including ALF's reasonable internal administration costs and legal costs and expenses on a full indemnity basis or solicitor and own client basis, whichever is higher.
On 15 July 2016, ALF lodged a caveat on the title to the Rex Road Property - caveat AK 594804M. The caveatable interest is said to be: Equitable mortgage to secure moneys owed from time to time by the Registered Proprietors as Borrowers and/or Guarantors to the Caveator.
The instrument referred to is an equitable mortgage dated 13 July 2016 between DCF No. 1 Pty Limited as mortgagee and the Daouds as mortgagors.
On or about 10 October 2016, D&D (as borrower), the guarantors (including the Daouds) and ALF entered into a deed of amendment to the Facility Agreement which increased the limit of the facility to $3,570,684.64. The document contains an acknowledgement by the guarantors that the guarantees remain in effect.
On 23 June 2020, ALF commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW against D&D as borrower, and each of the guarantors, in relation to the Facility Agreement, guarantee and mortgages (2020 Proceedings). The statement of claim sought, inter alia: 1. judgment for a monetary sum - being $10,918,561.80; 2. possession of the Gordon Road Property, the Rex Road Property and the Chisholm Road Property; and 3. leave to issue a writ of possession for the land comprising the Gordon Road Property, Rex Road Property and the Chisholm Road Property.
On or about 8 November 2021, the 2020 Proceedings were resolved by a deed of settlement entered into between ALF, D&D and each of the guarantors (Deed).
The effect of the Deed was that D&D and the guarantors, jointly and severally, agreed to pay ALF $1 million (clause 3.1) within four months of the date of execution (clause 3.2). The Deed also provided that all security held by ALF relating to the Facility Agreement, and including the Rex Road Mortgage, would only be discharged upon receipt by ALF of the settlement sum in full in accordance with clause 3.2 of the Deed.
The Deed also provided in clause 5 that upon its execution, the 2020 Proceedings would be discontinued, but otherwise provided that in the event that D&D and the guarantors failed to make payment of the settlement sum within the time stipulated, the amount of the settlement sum, less any amounts received in partial satisfaction of it, would become immediately due and payable by the borrower and the guarantors to ALF, and ALF would be at liberty to apply to the Court, by reinstatement of the 2020 Proceedings or otherwise, for default judgment against any one or more of D&D and the guarantors (clause 3.4).
The Deed also recorded in the Introduction the fact that D&D's obligations under the Facility Agreement were secured by the four mortgages, including the Rex Road Mortgage and that default notices under s 57(2)(b) of the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) had been issued.
The 2020 Proceedings were subsequently discontinued upon execution of the Deed.
On 17 November 2022, ALF filed a notice of motion for default judgment in the 2020 Proceedings on non-payment of the settlement sum.
On 31 March 2023, Lindsay J made the following orders and notations in the 2020 Proceedings without objection by the guarantors (31 March 2023 Orders): 1. ordered that the 2020 Proceedings be reinstated for the purpose of giving effect to the Deed; 2. noted that ALF informed the Court that the borrower, D&D, had been deregistered; 3. entered judgment in favour of ALF against the guarantors, including the Daouds for the sum of $1,043,427.40; 4. entered judgment in favour of ALF for possession of the Gordon Road Property; 5. ordered that ALF be granted leave to issue a writ of possession by way of enforcement of the judgment for possession; 6. ordered that execution of the writ be stayed up to and including 29 May 2023; 7. ordered that the guarantors pay ALF's costs of the notice of motion for default judgment in the sum fixed of $18,000 inclusive of GST; 8. ordered that the above orders be entered forthwith.
Mr Vardy deposed to the fact that the total amount owing by the Daouds pursuant to the 31 March Orders 2023, as at 27 May 2024, $1,183,674.55.
On 13 April 2024, ALF sold the Gordon Road Property at auction for $1,030,000. Completion occurred on 28 May 2024.
ALF incurred expenses with respect to the sale of the Gordon Road Property and has also incurred costs of the liquidator and legal costs and expenses in connection with the exercise of its rights under the Rex Road Mortgage and the Gordon Road Mortgage. Mr Vardy deposed to the fact that even if the full amount of the money paid into Court is paid to ALF, there will still be a shortfall of $186,917.94 with respect to the monies owed by the Daouds to ALF.

[5]

DebtCo's position

On or about 28 March 2018, Prospa Advance Pty Limited (Prospa), TRD Constructions Pty Limited (TRD) and the first defendant (George Daoud) as a guarantor entered into a loan agreement (Agreement). Pursuant to the Agreement, Prospa agreed to loan to TRD Constructions an amount of $50,000 for a period of 12 months.
Pursuant to clause 13 of the Agreement, each guarantor, including George Daoud, guaranteed to Prospa the due and punctual payment, performance and observance by TRD of all of its liabilities and obligations to Prospa. Pursuant to clause 2 of the Agreement, each "Transaction Party", which included each guarantor, in the event of an occurrence of an "Event of Default", granted security over all of its assets.
On 22 January 2019, Prospa registered a caveat (AP 13734) against the interest of George Daoud in the Rex Road Property. The estate or interest claimed as set out in the caveat is a "charge" by virtue of an agreement between the parties dated 27 March 2018.
On or around 30 June 2021, it is contended that Prospa formally assigned all of the title, right and interest to the debt and Agreement to DebtCo. I say it is contended because no document was put into evidence recording the assignment.
On or around 3 July 2021, a notice of assignment was sent to George Daoud on a joint letterhead from both Prospa and DebtCo.
On 3 December 2021, as a result of TRD and George Daoud having failed to repay any amount payable under the Agreement, DebtCo filed a statement of claim in the Parramatta Local Court against George Daoud to recover the amounts owing by George Daoud to DebtCo.
On 27 January 2022, DebtCo was awarded default judgment for the amount of $40,492.75 against George Daoud. None of that judgment debt has been paid.
As at 5 April 2024, it is contended that the judgment amount is $50,478.73, being the amount of the default judgment plus interest pursuant to s 101 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) (the Act) in the amount of $7,428.68, and enforcement costs in the amount of $2,557.30. This was further updated on 7 August 2024 to $59,324.70.

[9]

Determination

I am satisfied that ALF ranks first in priority and all of the monies paid into Court should be paid to it.
The order in which the monies should be paid out is to be determined by reference to the principles applicable where there are unregistered equitable dealings.
Having regard to the schedule to these reasons, it will be seen that each of ALF, Adbri, Hy-Tec, DebtCo and the other caveators have an unregistered equitable interest in the Rex Road Property - ALF pursuant to an unregistered mortgage and Adbri, Hy-Tec and DebtCo pursuant to unregistered charges.
The authorities relevant to the determination of claims of competing equitable interests were comprehensively reviewed by Ward JA (as the President then was) (with whom McColl and Gleeson JJA agreed) in Australian Capital Financial Management Pty Ltd v Linfield Developments Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 99 at [229]-[257].
As was there stated, the real task of the Court is to determine where the better equity lies. The general position is that where the merits are equal, the earlier in time prevails. However, where the merits are unequal, priority may be afforded to the later interest: see Applications of Bizcap AU Pty Ltd; Applications of Hengyi Zhao, Applications of FundIT Ltd [2024] NSWSC 588 at [65] per Hmelnitsky J.
There is nothing in the present case to suggest that ALF has engaged in any disentitling conduct. Its interest under the Rex Road Mortgage was created first in time.
There is no substance to the contentions which underlie DebtCo's now dismissed motion - namely that somehow under the Deed and/or the 31 March 2023 Orders, ALF lost its interest in the Rex Road Mortgage.
The Deed makes it clear that the Rex Road Mortgage will only be released if the settlement sum is paid in accordance with the Deed. This did not occur.
The 31 March 2023 Orders do not relate to the Rex Road Mortgage and as such there can be no suggestion that ALF's rights under the Rex Road Mortgage have somehow merged in those orders.
I am also satisfied for the reasons set out in ALF's written submissions, that the amount claimed by ALF is properly claimable and that this exceeds the funds paid into Court.
For these reasons I propose to make the orders sought by ALF.

[11]

Costs

ALF sought an order if they were successful, that Adbri and Hy-Tec pay their costs of the proceedings. The essence of the position advanced by ALF was that until the morning of the hearing, Adbri and Hy-Tec had actively opposed ALF's relief and sought to piggy back on DebtCo's motion. Given ALF has succeeded in claiming its relief, Adbri and Hy-Tec should pay the costs.
Adbri and Hy-Tec opposed any order for costs against them or alternatively contended that if any costs order was to be made, then either a Sanderson or Bullock order should be made requiring DebtCo to bear those costs. Adbri and Hy-Tec contended that they did not file any motion seeking substantive relief and that in essence all they were seeking was sufficient evidence from ALF justifying its contention that it had priority and that the quantum of its claim was such that ALF was entitled to all of the monies paid into Court. It was not until receipt of ALF's written submissions that sufficient material was provided to satisfy Adbri and Hy-Tec that ALF was entitled to all of the monies.
It was obviously not in dispute that the Court has a broad discretion with respect to costs: see s 98 of the Act.
I am not satisfied in the exercise of my discretion that any costs order should be made against Adbri or Hy-Tec in the circumstances of this case.
Neither Adbri nor Hy-Tec filed a motion seeking to make a claim on the monies paid into Court. Whilst Adbri and Hy-Tec sought to benefit from any success by DebtCo on its motion, this was DebtCo pressing for this relief, not Adbri or Hy-Tec. Adbri and Hy-Tec did not take any active role in the hearing.
There was considerable correspondence between ALF's solicitors and the solicitors for Adbri and Hy-Tec. Accepting that some of that correspondence includes contentions made by Adbri and Hy-Tec contrary to the position of ALF, for the most part that correspondence contains many requests for information or details as to why ALF's claim has priority and why it is for all of the monies paid into Court. This is in the context of where, given the nature of the claims, a hearing of some sort was always going to be necessary to obtain an order for payment out. Further, ALF was dealing with essentially the same points raised by DebtCo.
In the circumstances, it was not unreasonable for Adbri and Hy-Tec to press ALF on the quantum of the claim so as to be satisfied that there is no equity left in the Rex Road Property.