Di Liristi v Yosef

These reasons relate to orders that I made on 21 April 2026 at the conclusion of a directions hearing convened at the request of the plaintiff (Mr Di Liristi), pursuant to liberty to apply previously granted.

The orders, made in both proceedings 2023/00288890 and 2025/00398001, were as follows:

It is not usual for the Court to provide reasons for the making of directions orders. However, in light of the statements made by Mr Di Liristi during the course of the directions hearing, and the fact that he left the directions hearing prior to its conclusion, it is appropriate for the Court to provide brief reasons.

By way of general background, the plaintiff currently occupies a property owned by the defendant at Bringelly. For some time, the defendant has sought to have the plaintiff removed from the property and the plaintiff has resisted those efforts.

There are two sets of proceedings before the Court.

Relevantly, the 2023 proceedings were commenced in the District Court by the plaintiff on 23 August 2023. In those proceedings, the plaintiff seeks damages against the defendant for what he contends are various breaches of a residential tenancy agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff entered into in about August 2021. An amended statement of claim was filed in those proceedings. They were transferred to this Court by order of Slattery J made 31 October 2025. In these proceedings the plaintiff alleges that the residential tenancy agreement was for a period of 3 years.

The 2025 proceedings were commenced by the plaintiff in response to a lapsing notice served by the defendant in relation to a caveat that had been placed on the title to the Bringelly property by the plaintiff. An order was made by Brereton J, sitting as Duty Judge, extending the operation of the caveat for a short period of time.

On 31 October 2025, Slattery J, having heard extensive argument, made the following orders:

His Honour’s judgment also provides a general background of the dispute between the parties: see Di Liristi v Shahata [2025] NSWSC 1325. The plaintiff contended before Slattery J that he was promised a nine-year lease of the property, and, in reliance on that promise, incurred expenditure on improvements to the property commensurate with such a lease.

The plaintiff did not comply with order 5 made by Slattery J - an amended statement of claim was not filed by Mr Di Liristi by 21 November 2025. It has still not been filed.

Both proceedings were listed before me for directions as the Real Property List Judge on 28 November 2025. The plaintiff appeared by AVL. I made the following orders in the 2023 proceedings:

I subsequently made orders extending the request for legal assistance for the 2025 proceedings. No legal assistance was forthcoming in response to that request.

The defendant complied with those orders – a defence and cross claim were filed on 15 December 2025. The cross claim seeks a declaration that the defendant has validly terminated the residential tenancy agreement, a declaration that the defendant is entitled to possession and damages, including for unpaid rent.

The proceedings were next before me on 13 February 2026. The listing on 6 February 2026 was vacated by consent and stood over to 13 February 2026.

On 13 February 2026 I made the following orders:

The proceedings were stood over for further directions on 24 April 2026.

The proceedings were relisted at the request of the defendant on 27 March 2026. On that day the Real Property List was being conducted by Richmond J.

After hearing from both parties, Richmond J made the following orders:

The plaintiff did not comply with order 1 made by Richmond J on 27 March 2026, requiring him to serve his evidence in chief in support of his claim by 17 April 2026.

Before Richmond J on 27 March 2026, the plaintiff contended that he should be given further time than was ultimately allowed by Richmond J. He relied upon the circumstances that, although the Court’s referral for legal assistance had not resulted in any assistance being provided, he said he was now due to meet with a solicitor on 24 April 2026.

By email dated 17 April 2026 – the date ordered by Richmond J for the plaintiff to file his evidence - the plaintiff asked for the matters to be relisted. The plaintiff had previously emailed Justice Richmond’s chambers seeking to exercise the liberty to apply.

In response to that request, Richmond J listed the matter for directions on 24 April 2026 before me as the List Judge. By further email dated 17 April 2026, the plaintiff asked for that date to be moved forward to 21 April 2026 on the basis that he said he was unavailable on 24 April 2026 and, more importantly, he was before Slattery J in another matter at 4pm on 21 April 2026. In these circumstances, I acceded to the request of the plaintiff to have the matter listed on 21 April 2026, and not otherwise dealt with on a Friday in the Real Property List.

Mr Di Liristi appeared for himself at the directions hearing on 21 April 2026 which commenced at 3.30 pm. Mr Rizk of counsel appeared for the defendant by AVL from Melbourne.

Earlier on 21 April 2026, the plaintiff caused to be emailed to my chambers an affidavit which he had made dated 20 April 2026, which he indicated he wished to rely on at the directions hearing later that day. The affidavit itself contains 166 paragraphs and in total, together with the documents referred to in the affidavit, the total affidavit runs to 182 pages. I read the affidavit and its attachments prior to the directions hearing. It contains a significant degree of material that, in my view, is totally irrelevant to the issues before the Court at present. It is not necessary to set out in any detail large parts of that affidavit. In particular, it is not necessary to refer in any detail to the serious allegations that are made in relation to the conduct of the solicitors for the defendant, and indeed, officers of the Court in that affidavit. In my view, those matters are not presently relevant. For this reason, I did not seek a response from the defendant to them.

What is presently relevant is that Mr Di Liristi contends that he needs a further period of time in which to prepare an amended statement of claim which I presume will be filed in the 2025 proceedings. He contends that because of the conduct of Richmond J, the solicitor that he was to see on 24 April 2026 cancelled that conference and that he was now not able to see that solicitor until 8 May 2026. He says that he is to obtain the assistance of that solicitor for the purposes of drafting the amended statement of claim.

Prior to the matter being heard on 21 April 2026, Mr Di Liristi also caused to be emailed to my chambers, in response to a request, the orders he proposed be made. Those orders were as follows:

I do not propose to set out the submissions that were made by Mr Di Liristi during the directions hearing on 21 April 2026. Those submissions are recorded in the transcript of that day.

I must, however, refute the suggestions made by Mr Di Liristi that prior to coming on the bench I had “made my mind up” and had been “told by the Chief Judge in Equity” what approach I should take in relation to the matter. Those assertions are incorrect. During the course of the directions hearing Mr Di Liristi also stated that I was laughing at him. That allegation is likewise untrue.

My concern, as I explained to Mr Di Liristi during the course of the directions hearing was to move the matter along to a final hearing. He has occupied the property in question since 2021 and proceedings have been on foot since 2023. My role is to ensure that those proceedings are brought to final hearing in an orderly and timey way.

A party does not have an unlimited opportunity to present evidence and pleadings in support of their claim in breach of earlier orders for them to do so. The interests of both parties, and the administration of justice more broadly, must be considered. The defendant, who owns the property, is entitled to a determination in a timely way as to its claim for possession.

I pointed out to Mr Di Liristi during the directions that a number of previous orders had been made in relation to both the filing of an amended statement of claim and for any evidence on which the plaintiff proposes to rely. In relation to the former, Slattery J ordered on 31 October 2025 that any amended statement of claim be filed by 21 November 2025. Orders have been made by me and Richmond J for evidence to be filed. None of these orders have been complied with. The Court has sought to do what it can to assist the plaintiff in obtaining legal assistance in relation to the matter. No assistance has been provided.

The evidence demonstrates that the plaintiff has acted for himself in both proceedings, and in other proceedings, including by filing pleadings and detailed affidavit evidence.

In my view, having regard to the relevant matters set out in Mr Di Liristi’s recent affidavit, the interests of justice, and in particular the interests of both parties in the proceedings, are best served by the Court providing a further short opportunity for the plaintiff to file any amended statement of claim, together with any evidence in support of the case that Mr Di Liristi wishes to bring. Given the previous defaults it is also appropriate for a guillotine order to be made in relation to the plaintiff’s evidence. Leave of the Court can always be sought to rely on subsequently filed material if a proper basis is demonstrated for leave to be granted. The further time will provide the plaintiff with a further period to obtain the assistance of a solicitor.

The position of the defendant is protected by listing the matter for final hearing.

The timetable proposed by Mr Di Liristi would substantially prolong the proceedings.

Mr Di Liristi also sought an order that leave be granted for him to issue subpoenas. Some brief submissions were made by Mr Di Liristi as to some of the entities he wished to subpoena. If Mr Di Liristi wishes to issue subpoenas he should apply promptly in the usual way.

It was for these reasons that I made the orders set out above.