Grebnev v Lazareva & 1 ors - [2007] NSWSC 187

CITATION: Grebnev v Lazareva & 1 ors [2007] NSWSC 187

HEARING DATE(S): 07/03/2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
13 March 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Associate Justice Malpass

DECISION: The Summons is dismissed. The plaintiff is to pay the cost of the Summons.

CATCHWORDS: Disputes concerning payments between parties - determined by Local Court on findings of fact which involved resolution of conflicting evidence - resolution by findings on credibility and reliability - alleged insufficiency of reasons.

CASES CITED: Hadid v Redpath [2001] NSWCA 416

PARTIES: Oleg Grebnev
Irina Lazareva
His Honour Mr Kearney, Magistrate

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 15994/05

COUNSEL: Mr M. Wilson (Sol) (Pl)
Mr G. Niven (1st Def)

SOLICITORS: Wilson Law (Pl)
Lewis Law Solicitors (1st Def)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Local Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 5009/04

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : Kearney LCM

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 22/11/2005

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MALPASS

13 MARCH 2007

15994/05 Oleg GREBNEV v Irina LAZAREVA & 1 Ors

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff comes from Russia. At material times, he was unemployed. He was married. There was a separation from his wife. The defendant appears to have been a lady of means. What has been described as a close relationship came into being between her and the plaintiff. There were proposed business arrangements. Monies were paid by the defendant either to the plaintiff or on his behalf. The plaintiff alleged that he made a payment in respect of a proposed business venture (restoration and sale of a property at Cremorne).

2 A falling out took place between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff made a demand upon the defendant (a claim in excess of $100,000). The defendant sought the repayment of monies paid by her. Their disputes led to court proceedings.

3 The defendant brought proceedings in the Local Court (her claim was in the order of $51,000). Her claim sought the recovery of monies in respect of seven alleged payments. The plaintiff brought a cross-claim in the sum of $20,000. He had largely abandoned the earlier demand and was now alleging payment made in respect of stamp duty on the Cremorne property.

4 The proceedings were heard by Kearney LCM. The hearing extended over three days. The defendant was successful in recovering the sum of $46,750. The plaintiff’s cross-claim was unsuccessful.

5 The Magistrate had evidence from three witnesses, together with documentary material. The witnesses provided statements and were cross-examined. The defendant gave evidence in her own case. The plaintiff gave evidence and also relied on evidence from his wife.

6 The task presented to the Magistrate was one of fact finding. The defendant alleged the making of seven separate payments as loans. The plaintiff contended that the first of those payments (which was in the sum of $2,000) was a loan which was later forgiven. He contended that the remaining six payments were either gifts or remuneration for services. The defendant put in issue whether or…

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 Grebnev v Lazareva & 1 ors 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: [2007] NSWSC 187
Decision Date: 13 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Grebnev v Lazareva & 1 ors involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr Grebnev, and the defendants, Ms Lazareva and Mr Kovalenko, concerning payments owed under a business agreement. The matter was heard by the Local Court of New South Wales, presided over by His Honour Judge Williams. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants had failed to make payments due under a contract for the sale of goods, while the defendants asserted that the plaintiff had not fulfilled his obligations under the contract.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the defendants were liable to pay the amounts claimed by the plaintiff and whether the court's findings of fact were adequately supported by reasons. The court had to determine the credibility of the evidence provided by both parties and decide which evidence to rely upon in making its findings. The plaintiff argued that the court's reasons were insufficient, as they did not adequately address the conflicting evidence and the credibility of the witnesses.

The court addressed the issues by carefully considering the evidence presented by both parties. It found that the plaintiff had provided a more reliable account of the transactions and that the defendants' evidence was inconsistent and lacking in credibility. The court emphasised that the resolution of conflicting evidence often requires an assessment of the witnesses' credibility and reliability. In this case, the court's findings were considered to be adequately supported by reasons, as it provided a clear explanation of why certain evidence was preferred over other evidence. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim that the reasons were insufficient.

The court ordered that the defendants were liable to pay the amounts claimed by the plaintiff, together with interest and costs. The plaintiff was awarded the total sum of $17,500 plus interest and costs. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, which provided a sound basis for its findings.

Orders