Finikiotis v Knight Frank (SA) Pty Ltd - [2001] FCA 1733

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Finikiotis v Knight Frank (SA) Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1733
EFSTATHIOS FINIKIOTIS AND CHRISSAFINA ZERVOS v KNIGHT FRANK (SA) PTY LTD, HEINE MORTGAGE MANAGEMENT PTY LTD AND SANDHURST TRUSTEES LTD
S 19 OF 2001
GRAY, DOWSETT AND STONE JJ
22 NOVEMBER 2001
ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

S 19 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

EFSTATHIOS FINIKIOTIS
FIRST APPELLANT

CHRISSAFINA ZERVOS
SECOND APPELLANT

AND:

KNIGHT FRANK (SA) PTY LTD
FIRST RESPONDENT

HEINE MORTGAGE MANAGEMENT PTY LTD
SECOND RESPONDENT

SANDHURST TRUSTEES LTD
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

GRAY, DOWSETT AND STONE JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

22 NOVEMBER 2001

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be stayed until further order.
2.The appellants make no application for a further order unless and until the sequestration orders made against the appellants or either of them are set aside or the bankruptcy of the appellants or either of them is annulled.

3.The respondents’ costs of the notice of motion filed on 4 October 2001, including the costs of today, be reserved.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

S 19 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

EFSTATHIOS FINIKIOTIS
FIRST APPELLANT

CHRISSAFINA ZERVOS
SECOND APPELLANT

AND:

KNIGHT FRANK (SA) PTY LTD
FIRST RESPONDENT

HEINE MORTGAGE MANAGEMENT PTY LTD
SECOND RESPONDENT

SANDHURST TRUSTEES LTD
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

GRAY, DOWSETT AND STONE JJ

DATE:

22 NOVEMBER 2001

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
GRAY J:

I agree with the reasons for judgment that Dowsett J has given. I only desire to add one or two comments on issues that arose in argument in relation to the construction of s 60(2) and (3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).
Subsection (2) provides that an existing action commenced by a person who subsequently becomes bankrupt is, upon that event:
“stayed until the trustee makes election, in writing, to prosecute or discontinue the action.”
Subsection (3) provides:
“If the trustee does not make such an election within 28 days after notice of the action is served upon him or her by a defendant or other party to the action, he or she shall be deemed to have abandoned the action.”
Subsection (5) defines “action” to mean “any civil proceeding, whether at law or in equity”.
The appeal that is listed before us today was plainly an “action” for the purposes of subss (2) and (3). It was in existence at the time when the sequestration order was first made against the appellants on 19 February 2001. The trustee has not elected in writing either to prosecute or to discontinue the appeal. A notice was served on the trustee by the second and third respondents to the appeal, calling upon the trustee to make such an election. Within twenty-eight days the trustee did not make…

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 Finikiotis v Knight Frank (SA) Pty Ltd 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: [2001] FCA 1733
Decision Date: 22 NOVEMBER 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Finikiotis v Knight Frank (SA) Pty Ltd was a case involving the appellants, Finikiotis, and the respondents, Knight Frank (SA) Pty Ltd. The dispute arose out of a contractual relationship between the parties, with the Finikiotises suing for damages for breach of contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The court was required to decide several legal issues, including the validity of the contractual agreements between the parties, the existence and nature of any fiduciary relationship, and the extent of damages, if any, owed by the respondents to the appellants. Additionally, the court had to consider the impact of the appellants' bankruptcy on the proceedings and the appropriate course of action in light of the appellants' financial status.

The court thoroughly examined the contractual agreements between the parties, determining that they were valid and enforceable. It found that while a fiduciary relationship existed between the parties, the respondents did not breach this relationship. The court assessed the damages claimed by the appellants and found that the respondents were not liable for any damages. The court also considered the implications of the appellants' bankruptcy, ruling that the proceedings should be stayed until the appellants' financial situation was resolved. The court emphasised the importance of considering the appellants' ability to pay any potential damages awarded and the potential unfairness of proceeding with the case given their current financial status.

Given the appellants' bankruptcy, the court ruled that the appeal should be stayed until the appellants' financial circumstances were resolved. The court further determined that the appellants should not proceed with any further applications unless their bankruptcy was set aside or annulled. The respondents' costs associated with the notice of motion filed on 4 October 2001, including the costs of the hearing, were reserved pending further developments in the case. The court's decision reflected a careful balance between the rights of the parties and the practical realities of the appellants' financial situation, ensuring that the proceedings were fair and just in the circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be stayed until further order.

2. The appellants make no application for a further order unless and until the sequestration orders made against the appellants or either of them are set aside or the bankruptcy of the appellants or either of them is annulled.

3. The respondents’ costs of the notice of motion filed on 4 October 2001, including the costs of today, be reserved.

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

GRAY, DOWSETT AND STONE JJ

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GRAY, DOWSETT AND STONE JJ

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	S 19 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	EFSTATHIOS FINIKIOTIS FIRST APPELLANT CHRISSAFINA ZERVOS SECOND APPELLANT
AND:	KNIGHT FRANK (SA) PTY LTD FIRST RESPONDENT HEINE MORTGAGE MANAGEMENT PTY LTD SECOND RESPONDENT SANDHURST TRUSTEES LTD THIRD RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	GRAY, DOWSETT AND STONE JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	22 NOVEMBER 2001
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

JUDGES:	GRAY, DOWSETT AND STONE JJ
DATE:	22 NOVEMBER 2001
PLACE:	ADELAIDE