Antov v Bokan (No 2)

[2019] NSWCA 250

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

• Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation:

Antov v Bokan (No 2) [2019] NSWCA 250

Hearing dates:

2 July 2019

Date of orders:

18 October 2019

Decision date:

18 October 2019

Before:

Bathurst CJ at [1], Bell P at [2] and Payne JA at [78]

Decision:

Appeal dismissed with costs

Catchwords:

APPEAL – claim in promissory estoppel based on representations said to derive from two documents – whether primary judge erred in holding that one of the documents was not authentic – no error – no issue of principle

  CIVIL PROCEDURE – video link evidence – whether primary judge erred in refusing to permit video link evidence

Legislation Cited:

Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 (NSW) s 5B
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 31.3

Cases Cited:

Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
Campaign Master (UK) Ltd v Forty Two International Pty Ltd (No 3) (2009) 181 FCR 152; [2009] FCA 1306
House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201; [1994] HCA 40

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Vase Antov (Appellant)
Lidija Bokan (First Respondent)
Radmila Antova (Second Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:

 

Mr G W McGrath SC with Mr M V Sahade (Appellant)
Mr M J Heath with Mr B J Dean (First Respondent)
Submitting appearance (Second Respondent)

 

Solicitors:

  Oliveri Lawyers (Appellant)
Matthews Folbigg Pty Ltd (First Respondent)
Self-represented (Second Respondent)

File Number(s):

2018/332235

Publication restriction:

N/A

 Decision under appeal 

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Equity

Citation:

[2018] NSWSC 1474

Date of Decision:

3 October 2018

Before:

Ward CJ in Eq

File Number(s):

2015/00331929

Headnote

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

The appellant, Mr Vase Antov (Vase), was the grandson of the late Ms Ljubica Dimitrovska (the deceased), and his aunt, the first respondent, Ms Lidija Bokan (Lidija) was the deceased’s daughter. The second respondent, Ms Radmila Antova (Radmila), was the mother of Vase and Lidija’s step-sister. The proceedings arose out of Vase’s claim that he was entitled to an unencumbered interest in property in Granville (the Granville property), which had been owned by the deceased and which had been occupied by Vase (together with the deceased and Radmila) from approximately May 2010.

Vase sought a declaration that, in the events which had happened, Lidija (as executor of the deceased’s estate) held the Granville property upon constructive trust for him. He also sought an order that Lidija do all things and sign all documents necessary to transfer the unencumbered title of the Granville property to him, and further sought a declaration that, as executor of the estate, Lidija held the balance of the estate upon constructive trust for him.

Vase’s case rested upon the existence of two documents – a Power of Attorney, and a document described as a Contract for a Gift, which was said to have been…