Dibeek Holdings Pty Ltd v Notaras

Link copied
Case Copied 38 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dibeek Holdings Pty Ltd v Notaras [2000] FCA 1212

APPEALS – appeal on question of law under s 58(1) of the Tenancy Tribunal Act 1994 (ACT) –whether “perversity” in fact-finding constitutes error of law – whether finding perverse.

Corporations Law, s 553C.

Tenancy Tribunal Act 1994 (ACT), s 58.
Land Titles Act 1925 (ACT), ss 58, 59.

Dibeek Holdings Pty Ltd v Notaras [2000] ACTSC 1, cited.
De Nicholls v Saunders (1870) LR 5 CP 589, cited.
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Epeabaka (1999) 84 FCR 411, cited.
Bruce v Cole (1998) 45 NSWLR 163, cited.
Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139, cited.
Hill v Green (1999) 48 NSWLR 161, cited.
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611, cited.
Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Teo (1995) 57 FCR 194, cited.
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 231, cited.
Gye v McIntyre (1991) 171 CLR 609, cited.
In re Daintrey; ex parte Mant [1900] 1 QB 546, cited.

DIBEEK HOLDINGS PTY LTD v EMMANUEL NOTARAS & ORS
A 12 of 2000

MILES, SACKVILLE & KATZ JJ
30 AUGUST 2000
CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
DISTRICT REGISTRY

A 12 OF 2000

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:

DIBEEK HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED
APPELLANT

AND:

EMMANUEL NOTARAS
FIRST RESPONDENT

HELEN NOTARAS
SECOND RESPONDENT

STAMATINA KAROUZOS
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

MILES, SACKVILLE & KATZ JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

30 AUGUST 2000

WHERE MADE:

CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The appeal be allowed.

2.   The orders made by the trial Judge on 2 February 2000 be set aside.

3.   In lieu of the orders made by the trial Judge, order that the cross-appeal from the decisions of the Tenancy Tribunal of the Australian Capital Territory made on 14 July 2000 and 1 October 1998 be dismissed with costs.

4.   The cross-appeal be dismissed.

5.   The respondents pay the costs of the appellant of the appeal and of the cross-appeal.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

A 12 OF 2000

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:

DIBEEK HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED
APPELLANT

AND:

EMMANUEL NOTARAS
FIRST RESPONDENT

HELEN NOTARAS
SECOND RESPONDENT

STAMATINA KAROUZOS
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

MILES, SACKVILLE & KATZ JJ

DATE:

30 AUGUST 2000

PLACE:

CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

  1. This is an appeal from a judgment of a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory: Dibeek Holdings Pty Ltd v Notaras [2000] ACTSC 1. The trial Judge upheld a cross-appeal by the respondents to this appeal from a decision of the Tenancy Tribunal of the Australian Capital Territory (the “Tribunal”) constituted by the President. The trial…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Dibeek Holdings Pty Ltd v Notaras 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
[2000] FCA 1212
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dibeek Holdings Pty Ltd, as the appellant, contested the decision made by the trial Judge, who had previously ruled in favour of the tenants, represented by the respondents, in a dispute concerning the prepayment of rentals. The crux of the disagreement was whether a legally binding agreement had been reached between the parties. The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory was tasked with determining the validity of the agreement and the subsequent rulings made by the Tenancy Tribunal.

The legal issues before the court revolved around the interpretation of the factual findings made by the Tribunal. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the Tribunal correctly determined that an agreement had been made between the parties. This involved examining whether the conversations alleged by the Notaras had indeed occurred and if the Tribunal was correct in its findings that such conversations had taken place. The court also had to consider whether the Tribunal's decision was influenced by any errors of law or if it was based on an incorrect interpretation of the evidence.

In delivering its judgment, the court held that the Tribunal had erred in its approach to determining the existence of an agreement. The court found that the question of whether an agreement had been made was one of fact, not law. The court concluded that the Tribunal had failed to properly assess the evidence and make the necessary factual findings. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders made by the trial Judge, and dismissed the cross-appeal from the decisions of the Tenancy Tribunal with costs.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed, the orders made by the trial Judge be set aside, and the cross-appeal from the Tenancy Tribunal decisions be dismissed with costs. Additionally, the respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the appellant's appeal and cross-appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The orders made by the trial Judge on 2 February 2000 be set aside.

3. In lieu of the orders made by the trial Judge, order that the cross-appeal from the decisions of the Tenancy Tribunal of the Australian Capital Territory made on 14 July 2000 and 1 October 1998 be dismissed with costs.

4. The cross-appeal be dismissed.

5. The respondents pay the costs of the appellant of the appeal and of the cross-appeal.

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

The final contention advanced by Mr Sullivan was that the question of whether a legally binding agreement has been made is always a question of law. The question that the Tribunal addressed was whether, as a matter of fact, an agreement had ever been made between GPL and the tenants concerning the prepayment of rentals. That depended upon findings as to whether the conversations alleged by Emmanuel and George Notaras had taken place and, if not, whether it should be inferred from the evidence that similar conversations had taken place later. There were no issues as to consideration, unenforceability of a contract or the like. The question determined by the Tribunal was one of fact.CONCLUSION The following orders should be made:1.Appeal allowed.2.The orders made by the trial Judge on 2 February 2000 be set aside.3.In lieu of the orders made by the trial Judge, order that the cross-appeal from the decisions of the Tenancy Tribunal of the Australian Capital Territory made on 14 July 1998 and 1 October 1998 be dismissed with costs.4.Cross-appeal dismissed.5.The respondents pay the costs of the appellant of the appeal and of the cross-appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.