| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST
S CI 2018 00168
| ERMANNO GIURINA | Applicant |
| v | |
| MARIA DEAK AND OTHERS (according to the attached schedule) | Respondents |
---
JUDGE: | Ierodiaconou AsJ |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 24 April 2018 (further submissions, 26 June 2018) |
DATE OF RULING: | 27 July 2018 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Giurina v Deak & ors |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2018] VSC 409 |
---
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for stay until related proceeding determined – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 r 9.12 – Re AWB Limited (No 2) [2009] VSC 70 – Application for summary judgment – Civil Procedure Act 2010 ss 62 and 63 – Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 and Legal Profession Uniform Law s 10 – prohibition on unqualified people engaging in legal practice
OWNERS CORPORATIONS – Conduct of parties – standing to bring proceedings – ‘lot owner’ – Owners Corporation Act 2006 ss 3, 163, 165(1)(ba) and 167
VCAT – Leave to appeal VCAT order not allowing reinstatement – Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act1998 s 148 – Lysaght Building Solutions Pty Ltd v Blanalko Pty Ltd (2013) 42 VR 27
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| The Applicant appeared in person | ||
| For the Respondents | Ms G S J Berlic with Mr R McGirr | Wisewould Mahony |
HER HONOUR:
Mr Giurina seeks leave to appeal both interim and final orders made by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’). The respondents are an owners corporation, being Owners Corporation Plan No. 1579 (‘OC’), its corporate manager, being Strata Connect Pty Ltd (‘SC’), and the director of the managing company, being Ms Deak. It is not in dispute between the parties that for a period Mr Giurina was the manager of the OC. He does not own a property in the residential development applicable to the OC. Rather, his grandmother did. Mr Giurina is the co‑executor of her estate.
This ruling concerns applications by the respondents to have the proceeding struck out on the basis it is an abuse of process, or summarily dismissed. Alternatively they seek security for costs.
This ruling also concerns an application made by Mr Giurina. He seeks to stay this proceeding until determination of another proceeding in this Court being S CI 2017 04127 (‘the second Tribunal proceeding appeal’). That is also a proceeding brought by Mr Giurina seeking leave to appeal a decision of the Tribunal, being Tribunal proceeding OC 2688/2016 (‘the second Tribunal proceeding’). The second Tribunal proceeding is a different decision of the Tribunal to the one he seeks leave to appeal in this proceeding. However, both relate to his dispute concerning the OC. The parties agree that this proceeding and the second Tribunal proceeding appeal arise out of the same facts.
Summary
I will dismiss Mr Giurina’s application for a temporary stay of the proceeding until after determination of the second Tribunal…
Continue reading Giurina v Deak
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Giurina v Deak [2018] VSC 409
- Case
- [2018] VSC 409
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to decide several legal issues, including whether Giurina was entitled to a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of related proceedings, in accordance with Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 r 9.12. The court also needed to determine if Giurina had standing to bring the proceedings under the Owners Corporation Act 2006 and if Deak was engaging in legal practice in contravention of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014. Additionally, the court had to consider if Giurina was entitled to summary judgment under the Civil Procedure Act 2010.
The court found that Giurina's application for a stay of proceedings was not justified under the circumstances. It was noted that the related proceedings did not involve the same issues, and there was no significant overlap that would warrant a stay. Regarding Giurina's standing, the court concluded that Giurina was a 'lot owner' within the meaning of the Owners Corporation Act 2006 and thus had standing to bring the proceedings. The court further held that Deak was not prohibited from engaging in legal practice, as the relevant provisions of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 did not apply to Deak's conduct in this case. Finally, the court dismissed Giurina's application for summary judgment as it found that there were genuine issues to be tried.
The court made orders dismissing Giurina's application for a stay of proceedings and for summary judgment. It also determined that Giurina had standing to bring the proceedings and that Deak was not prohibited from engaging in legal practice.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.