Fermikis & Fermikis (No 3)

This matter concerned an application by the applicants, Mr and Mrs Fermikis, for an order that the respondent, Mr Fermikis, pay them a sum of $10,000. The dispute arose from a previous proceeding in which the applicants had sought to enforce a judgment debt against the respondent. The applicants alleged that the respondent had failed to comply with an undertaking given to the court in that earlier proceeding, which undertaking was intended to secure the payment of the judgment debt. The application was heard by Gill J in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondent had breached the undertaking he had provided to the court. This involved an examination of the terms of the undertaking and the respondent's conduct in relation to those terms. The court was required to determine if the respondent's actions, or inactions, constituted a failure to fulfil his obligations under the undertaking, thereby justifying the order sought by the applicants.

Gill J found that the respondent had indeed breached his undertaking. The court reasoned that the undertaking was clear and unambiguous in its terms, requiring the respondent to take specific steps to ensure the payment of the judgment debt. The evidence presented demonstrated that the respondent had not fulfilled these obligations, and his explanations for his non-compliance were not accepted by the court. The court applied the principle that undertakings given to the court are to be treated with the utmost seriousness and are binding on the party giving them. Consequently, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicants the sum of $10,000.