Court of Appeal practice

Case information

2025/00491158

6 October 2026

Catchwords

PROCEDURE – on 24 December 2020, the first respondent commenced proceedings by Summons seeking interim relief and final relief against several related companies in respect of alleged tax liabilities – the appellant was the sole director of several of the defendant companies – on or around 1 September 2023, the first respondent entered into a settlement deed with the appellant and several of the defendant companies who were associated with the third respondent (the Gazal Parties) which provided that each of the Gazal Parties would be jointly and severally liable to the first respondent for $18 million (the settlement sum) – the settlement deed further provided that in the event of default by the Gazal Parties, the Gazal Parties agreed that the first respondent would be entitled to judgment against them in the amount of the settlement sum less any payments already made to the first respondent pursuant to the settlement deed – by Notice of Motion filed on 18 April 2024 the first respondent sought orders under r 36.1A of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR) that judgment be entered for the first respondent jointly and severally against the Gazal Parties in the amount of $17,357,593.94 (the settlement sum less payments already made under the settlement deed) on the basis that the Gazal Parties were in default under the settlement deed – the appellant sought an adjournment of the application for judgment against him on the basis that he wished his newly retained legal representatives to investigate the possibility that the settlement deed was void or unenforceable on various bases, and the opportunity to adduce evidence in support of that contention – the primary judge found that the Gazal Parties were in default under the settlement deed – the primary judge dismissed the appellant’s application for an adjournment on the basis that the appellant had led no evidence which might provide a basis for the investigation into the unenforceability of the settlement deed – the primary judge held that the first respondent had complied with the terms of the settlement deed so as to entitle the first respondent to judgment in the amount of $17,357,593.94 plus costs – whether the primary judge erred in dismissing the adjournment application – whether the primary judge erred in entering judgment against the appellant for $17,357,593.94 plus costs without considering the evidence the appellant sought to adduce if the adjournment had been granted.

Decision under appeal

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Westmeat Development Pty Ltd as trustee for Westmeat Development Trust [2024] NSWSC 548

Submissions

1. Notice of Appeal
2. Appellant's submissions
3. Respondent's submissions
4. Appellant's submissions in reply

Coram

• Leeming JA
• Kirk JA
• McHugh JA

Counsel

• Appellant: S Gupta
• Respondent: S Scott

Case information

2025/00496774

7 October

Catchwords

PROCEDURE – on 8 August 2023, the appellant commenced proceedings claiming damages in no specified amount for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment trespass to land and malicious prosecution relating to his arrest by police officers in Rockdale on 25 June 2018 – the matter was heard jointly with related proceedings instituted by the appellant’s son (Mr Tabbaa Junior), arising from much of the same factual circumstances – the appellant and Mr Tabbaa Junior were unrepresented at trial – after opening their cases on 25 August 2025, each ofthe appellant and Mr Tabbaa Junior was invited to enter the witness box to give evidence in support of their claims – they both refused to do so – the matter was stood over to the following day to allow the respondent to reconsider its position – on the following morning, the respondent sought and was granted leave to file a notice of motion seeking judgment for want of evidence in its favour in relation to the malicious prosecution and trespass to land claims pursuant to r 29.10 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) on the basis that the appellant and Mr Tabbaa Junior had closed their cases and there was no case to answer – the appellant and Mr Tabbaa junior resisted the proposition that their cases were closed and requested an adjournment for a day during which to consider their position, which the primary judge granted – on 27 August 2025, the respondent moved on its motion – in an ex-tempore judgment, the primary judge held that the appellant and Mr Tabbaa Junior had closed their cases on 25 August 2025 – the primary judge further held that the appellant and Mr Tabbaa Junior bore the onus of making out their claims in malicious prosecution and trespass to land, and in the absence of evidence lead by the appellant or Mr Tabbaa Junior in support of those claims, they could not conceivably be made out – the primary judge granted the relief sought in the motion, giving judgment in favour of the respondent for want of evidence on the appellant and Mr Tabbaa Junior’s claims in malicious prosecution and trespass to land pursuant to UCPR r 29.10 – whether the primary judge erred in law by failing to afford procedural fairness to the appellant by failing to consider or properly engage with the appellant’s submissions – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the appellant had closed his case – whether the primary judge failed to afford procedural fairness, failed to provide adequate reasons or acted in bad faith in granting the relief sought in the respondent’s notice of motion.

Decision under appeal

Mouhammad Riad Tabbaa v State of New South Wales (Weber SC DCJ 27/8/2025; 28/11/2025

Submissions

1. Draft Notice of Appeal
2. Appellant's submissions
3. Respondent's submissions
4. Appellant's submissions in reply

Coram

• Mitchelmore JA
• Stern JA
• Griffiths AJA

Counsel

• Appellant: Self-represented
• Respondent: M Gollan and C Coventry

Case information

2026/00097254

8 October 2026

Catchwords

BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION – on 22 September 2016, the appellant entered into a written contract with the respondents to perform residential building works in the form of renovations and additions to the respondents’ property located at East Street, Blakehurst – the respondents paid $714,674 to the appellant for the building works, which commenced in October 2016 – on 26 February 2019, the respondents terminated the contract as a result of the appellant’s delay in completing the building works – on 15 February 2019, the respondents commenced proceedings against the appellant in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal seeking damages for breach of contract – the appellant did not dispute that he was in breach of the contract and that the respondents were entitled to terminate the contract, but disputed the calculation of damages – on 8 July 2020, the Tribunal awarded the respondents $317,919 in damages against the appellant for breach of contract – the appellant was subsequently unsuccessful in an appeal to the Appeal Panel against the Tribunal’s decision, but was successful in an appeal to the Supreme Court which, on 5 October 2022, allowed the appeal on the ground of apprehended bias and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for redetermination – before the Tribunal, in addition to resisting the respondents’ claim for damages, the appellant advanced a quantum meruit claim in the amount of $34,675 – on 29 August 2024, the Tribunal (differently constituted) ordered the appellant to pay the respondents $416,508.40 plus the respondents’ costs, and found that the appellant had failed to establish his quantum meruit claim – on 25 September 2024, the appellant appealed to the Appeal Panel which, on 11 June 2025, allowed the appellant’s appeal in part, decreased the amount payable to the respondents to $372,579.42, and ordered the appellant to pay 90% of the respondents’ costs of the appeal on an ordinary basis – the appellant sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the Appeal Panel’s decision in relation to the quantum meruit claim, the construction of the contract, and costs – the primary judge refused to grant leave to appeal on all grounds – whether the primary judge erred in refusing to grant leave to appeal and in failing to find error in the Appeal Panel’s decision in relation to the construction of the contract.

Decision under appeal

DeMarco v Macey [2026] NSWSC 57

Submissions

1. Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal
2. Draft Notice of Appeal
3. Respondent's Arguments for Leave to Appeal
4. Appellant's Summary of Submissions
5. Respondents Submissions
6. Appellant's Reply Submissions
7. Joint Chronology
8. Certificate of Suitability for Publication
9. Amended Certification of Suitabiliy for Publication

Coram

• Leeming JA
• Mitchelmore JA
• Stern JA

Counsel

• Appellant: M Young SC & C Bolger
• Respondent: E Hyde and G Adams