Christopoulos v Krishna - [2017] VSC 154

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL COURT
COMMERCIAL LIST

S ECI 2016 01136

DIMITRI CHRISTOPOULOS	Plaintiff
v
BADRISH KRISHNA (and others according to the Schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	JUDD J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6 March 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 April 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Christopoulos v Krishna & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 154

---

CONTRACT – Illegality – Contract created as an instrument of deception – Void – Plaintiff’s claims under the contract dismissed.

RESTITUTION – Loan to defendant – Independent of illegality – Unjust for defendant to retain the benefit of the loan – Plaintiff may apply to amend statement of claim to seek Restitution.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr P Cawthorn, one of Her Majesty’s Counsel with Ms S Worsfield	Moray & Agnew
For the Second Defendant	Mr I Upjohn, one of Her Majesty’s Counsel with Mr E Moon	Thomas Egan

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES

DIMITRI CHRISTOPOULOS Plaintiff

and

BADRISH KRISHNA First Defendant

and

PRABHU FAMILY PTY LTD (ACN 160 700 756) Second Defendant

and

HOLISTIC DENTAL PTY LTD (ACN 006 743 282) Third Defendant

and

HOLISTIC DENTAL HOLDINGS PTY LTD
(ACN 120 148 521) Fourth Defendant

and

HOLISTIC DENTAL BRUNSWICK PTY LTD
(ACN 110 328 321) Fifth Defendant

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction and background

The plaintiff, Dimitri Christopoulos, is an attorney at law carrying on practice in Athens, Greece. He commenced this proceeding against Badrish Krishna and four related corporate entities in the Commercial Court on 29 June 2016 to recover €600,000 pursuant to an alleged loan agreement made on 21 October 2015, and US$2.8 million pursuant to a further alleged loan agreement made on 23 October 2015, as amended by an extension agreement alleged to have been made on 9 November 2015. In the alternative, the plaintiff claimed US$3.5 million pursuant to a compromise agreement alleged to have been made on 12 November 2015.

Dr Krishna was the registered proprietor of a property at 70 Price Avenue, Mount Waverley, Victoria which, the plaintiff alleged, had also been provided as security. The plaintiff further alleged that three properties owned by the second defendant, Prabhu Family Pty Ltd, had been charged in his favour as security for repayment of the loans. The properties were at 6 Marchori Road, Blackburn North, Victoria; 7 Melville Road, Brunswick West, Victoria; and Unit 3, 90 Mitcham Road, Donvale, Victoria. The third, fourth and fifth defendants, Holistic Dental Pty Ltd, Holistic Dental Holdings Pty Ltd and Holistic Dental Brunswick Pty Ltd, respectively owned and operated dental clinics which, the plaintiff alleged, had been given as additional security for repayment of the obligation under the compromise agreement dated 12 November 2015.

The plaintiff sought declarations supporting each charge, the right to maintain caveats, an order requiring the creation and execution of a registerable mortgage over each title, and an order requiring the transfer to him of the assets of the various dental businesses.

The defendants gave notice of appearance on…

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.

Continue reading Christopoulos v Krishna

Details

AGLC: Christopoulos v Krishna [2017] VSC 154
Case: [2017] VSC 154
Decision Date: 4 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Christopoulos v Krishna involved a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding a contract that was intended to facilitate a deceptive transaction. The case was heard and determined in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff alleged that the contract was illegal because it was created as an instrument of deception, and sought to enforce the contract terms. The defendant countered that the contract was void due to its illegal nature and argued that the plaintiff's claims should be dismissed. Additionally, the plaintiff claimed that a loan made to the defendant was separate from the illegal contract and sought restitution for this loan.

The court was required to determine whether the contract was indeed illegal and void, and if so, whether the plaintiff's claims could be enforced. The court also needed to decide if the loan made to the defendant was independent of the illegal contract and whether the plaintiff was entitled to seek restitution for this loan. The central issue was whether the illegal nature of the contract rendered the entire agreement void and unenforceable, and if not, what remedies were available to the parties.

The court found that the contract was illegal as it was created for a deceptive purpose and, as such, was void. Consequently, the plaintiff's claims to enforce the contract were dismissed. However, the court also determined that the loan made to the defendant was independent of the illegal contract and was not tainted by the illegality. Therefore, it was unjust for the defendant to retain the benefit of the loan without repaying it. The court allowed the plaintiff to amend their statement of claim to seek restitution for the loan amount.

The court's final orders included dismissing the plaintiff's claims under the illegal contract but granting leave for the plaintiff to amend their statement of claim to seek restitution for the independent loan. The defendant was ordered to repay the loan amount to the plaintiff.

Orders