Julie Mitsios v Paul Cutter as Trustee for the Paul Cutter Family Trust

The Supreme Court of Victoria, in a decision by Tracey Berger J, considered a dispute between Julie Mitsios and Paul Cutter, the trustee for the Paul Cutter Family Trust. The core of the disagreement concerned the validity of a loan agreement and associated security documents, specifically whether these documents were void for illegality due to a contravention of section 100 of the *Constitution Act 1975* (Vic). The plaintiff, Ms Mitsios, sought declarations that the loan agreement and security were void and unenforceable, while the defendant, Mr Cutter, sought to uphold their validity.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the loan agreement and the security granted by Ms Mitsios to Mr Cutter were rendered void by reason of illegality. This illegality arose from an alleged contravention of section 100 of the *Constitution Act 1975* (Vic), which prohibits the Crown from granting any "monopoly" in Victoria. The Court was required to determine if the loan transaction, in its specific circumstances, constituted the granting of a monopoly by the Crown, thereby rendering the subsequent contractual arrangements void.

Justice Berger's reasoning focused on the interpretation and application of section 100 of the *Constitution Act 1975* (Vic). The Court found that the loan agreement and security did not involve the Crown granting a monopoly. The transaction was a private commercial arrangement between Ms Mitsios and Mr Cutter, and there was no evidence that the Crown had granted any exclusive right or privilege to Mr Cutter or the trust that would constitute a monopoly. Consequently, the Court concluded that the loan agreement and security were not void for illegality under section 100. The Court therefore dismissed Ms Mitsios's application for declarations of invalidity.