Hariri v. Moomena, (2015) 441 N.B.R.(2d) 197 (TD)

Judge:Morrison, J.
Court:Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick
Case Date:July 20, 2015
Jurisdiction:New Brunswick
Citations:(2015), 441 N.B.R.(2d) 197 (TD);2015 NBQB 208
 
FREE EXCERPT

Hariri v. Moomena (2015), 441 N.B.R.(2d) 197 (TD);

    441 R.N.-B.(2e) 197; 1152 A.P.R. 197

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[English language version only]

[Version en langue anglaise seulement]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2015] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.007

Renvoi temp.: [2015] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.007

Nizar Hassan Hariri (plaintiff) v. Khaled J.M. Moomena (defendant)

(F/C/59/2012; 2015 NBQB 208; 2015 NBBR 208)

Indexed As: Hariri v. Moomena

Répertorié: Hariri v. Moomena

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Fredericton

Morrison, J.

October 26, 2015.

Summary:

Résumé:

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment based on admissions made by the defendant at an examination for discovery. In his statement of claim the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had been unjustly enriched by virtue of receiving payment twice with respect to a judgment obtained by him in Saudi Arabia and subsequently enforced in New Brunswick. The plaintiff submitted that the admissions made by the defendant irrefutably established the unjust enrichment. The defendant resisted the summary disposition on the basis that the payment to the defendant upon which the unjust enrichment claim was based was not properly pleaded.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, granted the plaintiff's motion.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 6606

Foreign judgments - General - Recognition of judgment of foreign state - [See Practice - Topic 5931 ].

Practice - Topic 5931

Judgments and orders - Enforcement of foreign judgments - Registration - General - The plaintiff moved for summary judgment based on admissions made by the defendant at an examination for discovery - In his statement of claim, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had been unjustly enriched by virtue of receiving payment twice respecting a judgment obtained by him in Saudi Arabia and subsequently enforced in New Brunswick - The defendant argued, inter alia, that the two payments related to two different judgments: one on account of the New Brunswick judgment; the other on account of the Saudi judgment - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, rejected the argument - The New Brunswick judgment was merely the registration in New Brunswick of the Saudi judgment - They were both in relation to the same debt - See paragraph 22.

Restitution - Topic 62

Unjust enrichment - General - What constitutes - The plaintiff moved for summary judgment based on admissions made by the defendant at an examination for discovery - In his statement of claim the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had been unjustly enriched by virtue of receiving payment twice respecting a judgment obtained by him in Saudi Arabia and subsequently enforced in New Brunswick - The plaintiff submitted that the admissions made by the defendant irrefutably established the unjust enrichment - The defendant resisted the summary disposition on the basis that the payment to the defendant upon which the unjust enrichment claim was based was not properly pleaded - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, granted the motion - The plaintiff's allegations of fraud and unjust enrichment could stand independent of the other - The defendant's admissions were clear and unambiguous respecting the core issue of whether he had been paid twice for the same debt - The court had no reason to doubt that if the matter were to proceed to trial, the plaintiff would succeed in his claim against the defendant for unjust enrichment.

Counsel:

Avocats:

Steven D. Pearce, for the plaintiff;

K. Chipp McCrea, for the defendant.

This summary judgment motion was heard on July 20, 2015, by Morrison, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, Judicial District of Fredericton, who delivered the following decision on October 26, 2015.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP