Legal Research
Cases
Kalenik v Apostolidis

Kalenik v Apostolidis

Case [2009] VSC 208 29 May 2009

De facto relationship

Adjustment of property interests

Statutory Construction

Property Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 7588 of 2000

ZORICA KALENIK	Plaintiff
v
JOHN IOANNIS APOSTOLIDIS & ORS	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	HARGRAVE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 - 5, 9 - 12, 16 – 19, 23 - 26 February 2009 2 - 4, 10 – 13, 16, 18 - 20, 23 – 26, 30, 31 March 2009 1, 8, 21, 29, 30 April 2009 7 May 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 May 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Kalenik v Apostolidis
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 208

---

PROPERTY – De facto relationship – Adjustment of property interests under Part IX of the Property Law Act 1958 (Vic) ‑ Relevant principles – Adjustment order made.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr C Gunst QC with Mr R Edmunds	Leo Dimos & Associates
For the Defendant	Mr S Wilson QC with Dr D Kovacs	David Tonkin & Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Parties and Introduction.......................................................................................................... 2
Outline of applicable law and summary of issues............................................................. 4
Demeanour and general credibility of the parties............................................................. 9
(1)     Plaintiff’s credibility and demeanour............................................................................ 9
(2)     Defendant’s credibility and demeanour...................................................................... 24
(3)     Failure to call witnesses: Jones v Dunkel....................................................................... 28
Facts     ...................................................................................................................................... 35
(1)     Background and overview............................................................................................. 35
(2)     Commencement, nature and duration of the relationship....................................... 64
(a)   Commencement: 1993...................................................................................................... 64
(b)   Engagement?.................................................................................................................... 71
(c)   Meghan Courtney: 1995-6............................................................................................... 76
(d)   Alleged separation under one roof: 1999 - 2000............................................................... 96
(e)    Alleged periodic absences................................................................................................. 98
(3)     Assets of the parties at commencement of the relationship..................................... 99
(4)     Commencing value of the furniture business........................................................... 100
(5)     Separation value of the furniture business................................................................ 103
(a)   The defendant’s evidence................................................................................................ 108
(b)   Expert evidence............................................................................................................... 114
(6)     Other assets at separation............................................................................................ 128
(7)     Defendant’s assets at the separation date.................................................................. 129
(8)     Plaintiff’s assets at the separation date...................................................................... 130
(9)     Plaintiff’s contributions towards growth of the furniture business...................... 130
(a)   Did the plaintiff make any financial contributions?...................................................... 131
(b)   Did the plaintiff work in the business?.......................................................................... 139
(c)   Did the plaintiff participate in significant business decisions?..................................... 161
(10)   Plaintiff’s contributions to acquisition and value of residence.............................. 164
(11)   Plaintiff’s domestic contributions as homemaker, partner, carer/step‑parent... 166
(a)   Homemaker tasks............................................................................................................ 166
(b)   Care of David.................................................................................................................. 167
(12)   Were the plaintiff’s domestic contributions made more arduous by violence and abuse inflicted by the defendant?.......................................................................................... 171
Has either party engaged in relevant litigation misconduct?...................................... 181
(a) Conduct relating to Bill Nedelcu................................................................................... 181
(b) Alleged threats by the defendant.................................................................................... 203
Have the plaintiff’s contributions been sufficiently recognised and compensated for? 203
What orders are necessary to ensure that the plaintiff’s contributions are sufficiently recognised and compensated for?...................................................................................... 205

VIII Constructive Trust Claim.................................................................................................... 209

Conclusion and orders......................................................................................................... 210
Referrals to authorities......................................................................................................... 210

HIS HONOUR:

Parties and Introduction

In early February 1993 the plaintiff, Zorica Kalenik, met the first defendant, John Apostolidis also known as ‘Jannis’ or ‘Janni’. For convenience I will call Mr Apostolidis ‘the defendant’ and will refer to Ms Kalenik and Mr Apostolidis jointly…

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.

Continue reading Kalenik v Apostolidis

Details

AGLC: Kalenik v Apostolidis [2009] VSC 208
Case: [2009] VSC 208
Decision Date: 29 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kalenik v Apostolidis involved a dispute between the plaintiffs, the children of a deceased man, and the defendant, who was in a de facto relationship with the deceased. The plaintiffs sought an adjustment of property interests under Part IX of the Property Law Act 1958 (Vic) to rectify an imbalance they perceived in the distribution of their father’s estate. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The core legal issue before the court was whether the de facto partner of the deceased, who had been living with him for a considerable period, was entitled to a share of the deceased's estate under the relevant statutory provisions. The plaintiffs argued that the partner's contribution to the relationship did not warrant a share of the estate, whereas the defendant contended that her contributions, both financial and non-financial, were significant enough to warrant a portion of the estate.

The court considered several factors, including the nature and duration of the de facto relationship, the contributions made by the defendant to the relationship and the estate, and the statutory criteria outlined in Part IX of the Property Law Act 1958 (Vic). After a thorough examination of the evidence, the court determined that the defendant's contributions, both financial and otherwise, were substantial and that her exclusion from the estate would result in an unjust outcome. The court found that an adjustment of property interests was warranted to reflect the contributions made by the defendant during the course of the relationship. Consequently, the court made an order adjusting the property interests in favor of the defendant, ensuring that her contributions were recognised and appropriately compensated.

The final orders of the court included an adjustment of the property interests to recognise the defendant's contributions to the estate. The specific details of the adjustment were left to be determined by further proceedings, but the court's decision affirmed the principle that de facto partners could be entitled to a share of an estate under certain circumstances. This decision reinforces the importance of recognising the contributions of de facto partners and the need for equitable distribution of property interests in such relationships.

Orders