/

/

Mola v Rithnapa (Cross-Claim) [2026] NSWSC 889 | Case summary | Zoe

NSWNSWSC

Mola v Rithnapa (Cross-Claim)

[2026] NSWSC 889

Supreme Court of NSW|2026-07-27|Before: Hammerschlag CJ in Eq

View on NSW Caselaw

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Supreme Court of NSW

Decision date

2026-07-27

Before

Hammerschlag CJ in Eq

Catchwords

EQUITY — equitable fraud — misrepresentation — claim by Cross-Claimant for payment out of monies standing in Court — HELD — money belongs to Cross-Claimant and payment out ordered accordingly — no other issue of principle

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Catchwords

EQUITY — equitable fraud — misrepresentation — claim by Cross-Claimant for payment out of monies standing in Court — HELD — money belongs to Cross-Claimant and payment out ordered accordingly — no other issue of principle

Judgment

Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.

Medium Neutral Citation: Mola v Rithnapa (Cross-Claim) [2026] NSWSC 889

Hearing dates: 27 July 2026

Date of orders: 27 July 2026

Decision date: 27 July 2026

Jurisdiction: Equity

Before: Hammerschlag CJ in Eq

Decision: (1) Declaration that the amount standing in Court of $186,132.23, together with any interest accrued thereon, belongs to the Cross-Claimant legally and beneficially.
(2) Pursuant to r 41.3 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), the total amount in Court is forthwith to be paid out to the Cross-Claimant, Sana Mola.
(3) The proceedings are otherwise dismissed.
(4) The First Cross-Defendant is to pay the Cross-Claimant’s costs of the proceedings.

Catchwords: EQUITY — equitable fraud — misrepresentation — claim by Cross-Claimant for payment out of monies standing in Court — HELD — money belongs to Cross-Claimant and payment out ordered accordingly — no other issue of principle

Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: Westpac Banking Corporation (Plaintiff)
Sirinda Rithnapa (First Defendant / First Cross-Defendant)
Sana Mola (Second Defendant / Cross-Claimant)
Kongnoune Mola (Third Defendant)
Supratrada Smith (Second Cross-Defendant)

Representation: Solicitors:
MinterEllison (Plaintiff)
Gillard Consulting Lawyers (Second Defendant / Cross-Claimant)

2022/275880

The Cross-Claimant (Mola) is in his late 70’s. He does not read or write English, and has limited skills in reading and writing in Laotian and Thai.
He once owned a house at 77 Green Valley Road, Green Valley, NSW.
The First Cross-Defendant (Rithnapa) cheated him out of the ownership of that house. Mola wanted to borrow money, and Rithnapa offered to arrange a loan using it as security, but then dishonestly proffered for his signature documents effecting a sale to herself of the house in the guise that they were for the purposes of the loan. He did not understand what he was doing. The documents included a receipt for $150,000 as a deposit, which money he never received. Upon the sale, an earlier mortgage to ANZ Bank was discharged, and a new one in favour of Westpac Banking Corporation (the Bank) was registered on title. He later discovered that he was no longer the owner, and that Rithnapa now was.
Rithnapa defaulted on the Westpac mortgage, and the Bank foreclosed. It was the Plaintiff in the principal proceedings.
The Bank received a surplus of $186,132.23, which it paid into Court.
The sole relief now sought, by way of his Cross-Claim, is payment out to him of the amount standing in Court.
Rithnapa was duly served, but has never filed an Appearance, and has put on no evidence. On 2 April 2026, the matter was fixed to be heard by me today, 27 July 2026. Directions for evidence and a Court Book were made. Rithnapa failed to comply.
Last week, Rithnapa contacted my chambers indicating that she was in Thailand, had stage 3 colon cancer and wanted an adjournment. I gave her leave to make that application remotely, which she did. She provided no material in support of it, was unable to say when she might recover to return to Australia, made it clear that she was not in a position to pay the costs which will be thrown away by any adjournment, and provided no inkling of any defence, all of this in the context where Rithnapa has had more than three months’ notice of the trial, has taken no steps to participate in it, and where the amount in contest is relatively modest. I refused the application.
Because the First Cross-Defendant, for her own nefarious purpose, misled the Cross-Claimant into parting with his property, additionally, in circumstances where he was at a disadvantage, he never lost his beneficial entitlement to that property and whatever interest she might have in it must yield to his. I find that the money standing in Court belongs to the Cross-Claimant and, correspondingly, the First Cross-Defendant has no legal or equitable entitlement to it.
The Court makes the following orders:
Declaration that the amount standing in Court of $186,132.23, together with any interest accrued thereon, belongs to the Cross-Claimant legally and beneficially.
Pursuant to r 41.3 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), the total amount in Court is forthwith to be paid out to the Cross-Claimant, Sana Mola.
The proceedings are otherwise dismissed.
The First Cross-Defendant is to pay the Cross-Claimant’s costs of the proceedings.