Baloglow v Konstantinidis

Case [2001] NSWCA 451


CITATION: Baloglow v Konstanidis & Ors [2001] NSWCA 451
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40092/01
HEARING DATE(S): 17 July 2001
JUDGMENT DATE:
6 December 2001

PARTIES :


Theo Baloglow v Simon Konstantinidis; Larripalm Pty Ltd (Receiver & Manager Appointed); Carlisle Developments Pty Ltd (Receiver & Manager Appointed); Ricvale Holdings Pty Ltd (Receiver & Manager Appointed; Balkon Pty Ltd (Receiver & Manager Appointed)
JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Priestley JA at 4; Giles JA at 129
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court - Equity Division
LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) :
ED 4656/99
LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Bergin J
COUNSEL: Appellant - F.M. Douglas QC / T.G.R. Parker
Respondent (1) - B. Oslington QC / G. Segal
SOLICITORS: Appellant - Gordon & Johnstone
Respondent (1) - Charles G. Roth
Respondents (2, 3, 4, 5) - Carneys
CATCHWORDS: Specific performance - partnership - winding up
LEGISLATION CITED: Conveyancing Act 1919
CASES CITED:
ABC v XIVth Commonwealth Games Limited (1988) 18 NSWLR 540
Abjornsen v Urban Newspapers Ltd (1989) WAR 191
Adamson v Hayes (1973) 130 CLR 236
Brown v Heffer (1996) 116 CLR 344
Canny Gabriel Castle Jackson Advertising Pty Ltd v Volume Sales (Finance) Pty Ltd (1974) 131 CLR 321
Chan v Cresdon Pty Ltd (1989) 168 CLR 242
Commissioner of Taxes (Queensland) v Camphin (1937) 57 CLR 127
Geebung Investments Pty Ltd v Varga Group Investments No 8 Pty Ltd (1995) 7 BPR 97578
Grey v Inland Revenue Commissioners (1960) AC 1
Hagan v Waterhouse (1991) 34 NSWLR 308
Hewitt v Court (1983) 149 CLR 639
Leeman v Stocks [1951] 1 Ch 941
Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 343
Monte v Buongiorno (1978) WAR 49
Neville v Wilson [1997] Ch 144
Oughtred v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1960] AC 206
Parker v Manessis (1974) WAR 54
Perri v Coolangata Investments Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 537
Pirie v Saunders (1960) 104 CLR 149
Ratto v Trifid Pty Ltd (1985) 56 LGRA 22
Redden v Wilks (1979) WAR 161
Secretary, Department of Social Security v James (1990) 85 ALR 615
Stern v McArthur (1988) 165 CLR 489
Tonitto v Bassal (1992) 28 NSWLR 564
Trifid Pty Ltd v Ratto (1985) WAR 19
Upper Hunter County District Council v Australian Chilling and Freezing Co Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 429
York Air Conditioning and Refrigeration (A'Asia) Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1949) 80 CLR 11
DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs.





                          CA 40092/01
                          ED 4656/99
                          MASON P
                          PRIESTLEY JA
                          GILES JA

                          Monday, 6 December 2001

BALOGLOW v KONSTANTINIDIS & ORS



      PROCEEDINGS FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - partnership - by consent of K and B, partners no longer able to work together, court makes orders winding partnership up and appointing receiver - K and B wish to terminate receivership and to see if they can agree on a figure for which B will sell his partnership interests to K - meeting between solicitors for K and B at which proposals for such a sale discussed and allegedly agreed on - K then claims that an enforceable agreement…

Continue reading Baloglow v Konstantinidis

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Baloglow v Konstantinidis [2001] NSWCA 451
Case
[2001] NSWCA 451
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in *Baloglow v Konstantinidis* concerned the winding up of a partnership. The case came before the New South Wales Court of Appeal, with Mason P, Priestley and Giles JJA presiding.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the orders made by the primary judge concerning the transfer of shareholdings were appropriate, particularly in light of the fact that certain shares were held by individuals other than the direct partners.

The Court considered a submission that the orders were flawed because they directed the transfer of "all" shareholdings in certain companies by one party, Mr Baloglow, without making specific orders concerning the shareholdings of Mrs Baloglow and the children. However, it was common ground at trial that these other shareholders held their shares on trust for the partnership. Accordingly, the Court interpreted the order as requiring the transfer of Mr Baloglow's beneficial interest in those shares. The Court indicated that if necessary, it would amend the orders to reflect this interpretation, but no other challenges were made to the form of the orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

. A submission briefly made for Mr Baloglow was that even if none of his defences succeeded, there was still something wrong with Bergin J’s orders. The specific point was that amongst the orders were the orders that Mr Baloglow transfer to Mr Konstantinidis “all” Mr Baloglow’s “shareholding” in Carlisle and Balkon; Mrs Baloglow was a shareholder in Carlisle; Mrs Baloglow and some of Mr and Mrs Baloglow’s children were shareholders in Balkon; and no order was made concerning their shareholdings. However, as discussed earlier in these reasons, it was common ground at the trial that Mrs Baloglow and the children held their shares on trust for the partnership. Accordingly, I would read the order that Mr Baloglow “transfer … all … his shareholding in …” as meaning “transfer … all … his interest in shares held in …”. If thought necessary I would amend the orders accordingly. No other challenge was made to the form of the orders.

Conclusion .

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.