Jospin P/L v Copulos Venture Capital P/L

Case [1994] FCA 127


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

) )

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
) No VG 66 of 1991
)
GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN:  JOSPIN PTY LTD.
JOHN PASIAS and MARY PASIAS

(Applicants)

2 3 MAR 1994 m:
FEDERAL COURT OF
AUSTRALIA PRlNClPN
REQISTRY

(Respondents)

Judae :  Ryan J

Place: Melbourne

Date:  18 March 1994

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ON CROSS-CLAIM

RYAN J: On 18 February 1994 I gave judgment for the applicants in the sum of $255,641 together with interest in the sum of $135,941 and costs. On that day I published my written reasons for judgment. Those orders, however, did not dispose of the cross claim brought by the respondents against the applicants. I deal with that matter now.

related to tradlng stock and advertising services provided

By their cross-claim the respondents alleged that certain monies were due and payable under the franchise agreement between the applicant, Jospin Pty Ltd, and Ollies Resources Pty Ltd. In the course of evidence, Mr Pasias, the principal of Jospin Pty Ltd conceded that the amount claimed in the $16,367.04 represented outstanding moneys due which were Q

before 24 January 1990. There is no suggestion that the conceded amount payable was affected by the misrepresentations made on behalf of the respondents in the contravention of the

Trade Practices Act for which judgment was pronounced in

favour of the applicants. Accordingly, there must be judgment for the respondents on the cross-claim in the sum of $16,367.04 together with the costs of and incidental to the cross-claim. I would also award interest on the sum of $16,367.04 to the date of judgment calculated in the manner indicated in my reasons of 18 February 1994. I request the parties to make the necessary calculations of interest and submit minutes of orders reflecting these reasons.

I certify that this and preceding page are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of his Honour Mr Justice Ryan

Associate:

Counsel for applicants:  Dr C Pannam QC
with Mr R I Rosenberg
Solicitors for applicants:  Goulopoulos Shiels and
Mangopoulos
Counsel for respondents:  Mr P J OfCallaghan QC
with Mr D Collins
Solicitors for respondents:  Riordan & Partners
Details
AGLC
Jospin P/L v Copulos Venture Capital P/L [1994] FCA 127
Case
[1994] FCA 127
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jospin P/L v Copulos Venture Capital P/L involves Jospin P/L, represented by John and Mary Pasias, as the applicants, and Copulos Venture Capital P/L as the respondents. The dispute centres on a cross-claim brought by the respondents against the applicants regarding outstanding monies due under a franchise agreement between Jospin P/L and Ollies Resources P/L. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, specifically in the Victoria District Registry.

The court was required to determine the validity and amount of the cross-claim made by the respondents, Copulos Venture Capital P/L. This included assessing whether the applicants owed the respondents any money under the franchise agreement, and if so, the exact amount that was due and payable. The applicants had conceded that $16,367.04 was owed, but the court had to confirm this amount and determine if any interest was applicable.

In his judgment, Justice Ryan found that the amount of $16,367.04 was indeed due and payable by the applicants to the respondents. The court accepted that this amount was not affected by the misrepresentations made by the respondents, which were the subject of a separate claim for which judgment had already been given in favour of the applicants. Consequently, the court ordered that the respondents were to receive the conceded amount, along with interest calculated according to the previous judgment, and the costs associated with the cross-claim.

The final orders of the court were that Copulos Venture Capital P/L was to be paid the sum of $16,367.04 from Jospin P/L, together with interest and the costs of the cross-claim. The parties were directed to calculate the interest due and submit minutes of orders that reflected the court's reasons.

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.