Chris Siamidis v Steve Siamidis - [2025] VSC 228

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL COURT

COMMERCIAL LIST

S ECI 2024 06819

CHRIS SIAMIDIS & ANOR (according to the Schedule)	Plaintiffs
v
STEVE SIAMIDIS & ORS (according to the Schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Delany J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	21 March 2025
DATE OF RULING:	1 May 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Chris Siamidis & Anor v Steve Siamidis & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 228

---

RECEIVER — Just and convenient to appoint receivers to sell real property assets the subject of a deed of settlement — Deed put an end to four years of heavily contested litigation — Strong prima facie case of breach of the deed — Family relationship broken down — Multiple past breaches and delays by defendants — Breach of obligation to cooperate — Section 37(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), ss 7 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) — Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hopkins [2024] FCA 1371, University of Western Australia v Gray (No 6) [2006] FCA 1825 followed, National Australia Bank Limited v Bond Brewing Holdings Limited [1991] 1 VR 386 distinguished, Martyniuk v King & Ors [2000] VSC 319 considered.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Christopher Brown KC Georgia Berlic	SBA Law
For the First Defendant	Alexandra Folie	Hall & Wilcox
For the Second Defendant	Andrew P Dickenson	Gordon Legal

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Overview.............................................................................................................................................. 1

The plaintiff’s claims........................................................................................................................ 6

Steve’s response to the plaintiffs’ claims...................................................................................... 7

An evaluation of the competing claims......................................................................................... 8

Criteria for the appointment of a receiver................................................................................... 12

Chris’ submissions...................................................................................................................... 14
Steve’s submissions.................................................................................................................... 17

Consideration.................................................................................................................................... 20

Undertaking as to Damages........................................................................................................... 28

HIS HONOUR:

Overview

On 6 August 2024 the parties to this proceeding entered into a settlement deed (‘settlement deed’). The settlement deed resolved differences between members of the Siamidis family and companies trust and superannuation funds associated with the family members which had been the subject of proceedings in this Court since December 2020 and in the County Court since July 2022. On one side of that litigation was Chris Siamidis and his mother Kasiani and on the other side, Chris’s brother Steve and sister Mary.

Without intending any disrespect to the parties involved in this dispute, I refer to them in these reasons by their given names.

On 16 December 2024 Chris and Kasiani issued this proceeding alleging breach by Steve and Mary of their obligations pursuant to the settlement deed. The relief sought in the proceeding includes an order for specific performance of the settlement deed. In the alternative an order pursuant to s 37 of the Supreme Court Act and r 39.02 and/or r 66.11 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) (‘Rules’) that a receiver be appointed for the purpose of taking steps, executing all documents and doing all things necessary to sell certain real property referred to in the settlement deed and for such other orders as the Court deems…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Chris Siamidis v Steve Siamidis and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] VSC 228
Decision Date: 1 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chris Siamidis filed a claim against Steve Siamidis seeking the appointment of receivers to sell real property assets. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether it was just and convenient to appoint receivers to sell the real property assets in accordance with a deed of settlement. This decision arose from a protracted and contentious legal battle between the parties that had lasted four years. The court was tasked with determining if there was a strong prima facie case of a breach of the deed, considering the breakdown of the family relationship and multiple past breaches and delays by the defendants. Additionally, the court examined the obligation to cooperate under the deed and relevant statutory provisions.

The court considered the factors relevant to appointing receivers, including the breakdown of the family relationship, the history of breaches and delays, and the obligation to cooperate. The court found that the defendants had breached the deed and had not cooperated as required. The court referred to previous cases, such as Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hopkins, University of Western Australia v Gray, and National Australia Bank Limited v Bond Brewing Holdings Limited, to guide its decision. The court held that appointing receivers was just and convenient under the circumstances, given the significant breaches and delays by the defendants and the need to bring the litigation to an end.

The court concluded that the appointment of receivers was appropriate to resolve the ongoing disputes and to enforce the terms of the deed of settlement. The court granted the application for the appointment of receivers, ordering the sale of the real property assets as per the deed. The court's decision aimed to bring an end to the prolonged litigation and to enforce the terms of the settlement, ensuring that the parties adhered to the obligations set out in the deed. The final orders included the appointment of receivers and the direction for the sale of the specified real property assets.

Orders