David Maurice Glaser, Roslyn Glaser & Ors v TJW & Associates Pty Ltd

The plaintiffs move on a Notice of Motion seeking summary judgment for possession against the defendant. The matter is before me as the Duty Judge. While the plaintiffs are represented, there is no appearance on behalf of the defendant. Ms Williamson, the director of the defendant company, has attended previous related proceedings.

At the outset of today’s proceedings, I made an enquiry as to whether Ms Williamson (or anyone else representing the defendant) was notified that the matter had been listed today for hearing. During a short adjournment, the plaintiffs’ solicitor attempted to contact Ms Williamson. I am advised that the plaintiffs’ solicitor telephoned Ms Williamson with no response. A text message was sent advising that the matter was listed today for hearing. There was no acknowledgement of the text communication. In addition, an email was forwarded to Ms Williamson today at 11:19am advising that the matter was listed and stood in the list until 12pm.

Previously, by emails dated 20 November 2025 and 24 November 2025, the plaintiffs’ solicitor communicated to Ms Williamson several matters. Importantly, that communication included notification that the matter was set down for hearing today.

I am satisfied that all reasonable attempts have been made to ensure that Ms Williamson is aware of today’s listing. I am satisfied that the matter can proceed to hearing notwithstanding the nonappearance of Ms Williamson.

It is not in dispute that the defendant borrowed money (a sum of $780,000) and gave a mortgage for that amount. The substantive issue raised in the defence (filed 22 September 2025) is the identity of the party advancing the mortgage.

A similar issue was decided in related proceedings, adversely to the defendant: see Oclee Holdings Pty Ltd v Palace Property Pty Ltd; Zhao v TJW & Associates Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 1116.

The plaintiffs read the affidavit of Robert Kremnizer, annexing Exhibit RLK-1 which is a bundle of documents relevant to the matter.

The Deed of Loan sets out a number of details including the identity of the borrower (the defendant in these proceedings). The lender appears to have been initially identified as Baccus Investments Ltd. However, the identity is amended by virtue of Annexure A to the Deed which identifies the lender as David Maurice Glaser and Roslyn Glaser (the first and second plaintiffs), as well as the other plaintiffs.

The registered mortgage identifies the mortgagor as the defendant and the mortgagee as the plaintiffs. As already indicated, the issue as to the identification of the mortgagee, has previously been decided in favour of the plaintiffs.

Summary judgment is governed by r 13.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR) which relevantly provides:

There is evidence of the facts on which the relevant part of the plaintiffs’ claim was based. Mr Kremnizer, who is relevantly a responsible person for the purposes of the rule, in his affidavit, affirms that he believes that the defendant has no defence to the claim for possession.

While the power to terminate proceedings summarily is to be sparingly employed, the relief sought, in my view, is appropriate in the present case where the relevant facts have been established.

Accordingly, I make the following orders: