Automatic language translation
Our website uses an automatic service to translate our content into different languages. These translations should be used as a guide only. See our Accessibility page for further information.
2025/00377168
| Date | Party | Submission |
|---|---|---|
4/11/25; 20/2/26 |
Appellant | Notice of Appeal (PDF, 2.7 MB) |
12/12/25; 20/2/26 |
Appellant | Submissions (PDF, 279.9 KB) |
| 2/2/26 | Respondent | Submissions (PDF, 3.6 MB) |
| 20/2/26 | Appellant | Reply (PDF, 1.1 MB) |
| 20/2/26 | Respondent | Certification for Publication (PDF, 27.2 KB) |
CONTRACT – this is a suit brought by Mr Thomas Boga to recover monies lent to 15 Glenburnie Rd Pty Ltd (15 Glenburnie), which were guaranteed by Mr Ahmad Abdulkader Sakr, pursuant to a deed entered into between the parties on around 28 October 2019 (the Deed) – there is no dispute as to the existence of the Deed, under which Mr Boga promised to lend the sum of $1.9 million to 15 Glenburnie – Mr Boga and Mr Sakr are known to each other, and have a history of commercial dealings concerning the purchase and development of property – Mr Sakr is the sole director of 15 Glenburnie – Mr Boga alleged that 15 Glenburnie had only made a single repayment of $700,000 on 29 December 2020, and sought the repayment of the balance of the loan (being $1.2 million) as well as interest – 15 Glenburnie and Mr Sakr disputed that only a single repayment had taken place, and particularised approximately 20 payments over December 2019 to March 2021 that had been made with respect to the loan, totalling approximately $1.95 million – the primary judge held that: (1) the advances made by Mr Boga to Mr Sakr in relation to the loan agreement are in the sum of $2,010,000; (2) the repayments made by Mr Sakr to Mr Boga in relation to the loan agreement are in the sum of $1,843,000; (3) the balance owing to Mr Boga by Sakr is in the sum of $167,000 plus interest – whether the primary judge was in error when her Honour concluded that on or around 27 December 2019, $450,000 was not advanced to the first respondent as a loan – whether the primary judge was in error when her Honour concluded that on or around 10 November 2020, $100,000 was not advanced to the first respondent as a loan – whether the primary judge was in error when her Honour concluded that on or around 19 July 2021, $150,000 was not advanced to the first respondent as a loan.
Last updated: