Katramados v Hasapis (No 4) - [2019] NSWSC 846

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Katramados v Hasapis (No 4) [2019] NSWSC 846
Hearing dates: 1 July 2019
Date of orders: 05 July 2019
Decision date: 05 July 2019
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Robb J
Decision:
See par 41

Catchwords:
EQUITY — Trusts and trustees — Court-appointed trustee — Trust powers — Orders facilitating trustee being able to sell properties as per previous orders made by the Court in these proceedings
JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS — Delay in relation to final orders — Effect of new evidence inconsistent with findings in principal judgment on issues relevant to relief before final orders made –– Matter not brought to the attention of the Court by applicants for family provision orders –– Matters that the Court requires the parties to address prior to final family provision and costs orders being made
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)
Trustee Act 1925 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Katramados v Hasapis [2018] NSWSC 948
Katramados v Hasapis (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1604
Katramados v Hasapis (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 435
Category: Consequential orders (other than Costs)
Parties: Julia Katramados (plaintiff)
Despina Hasapis (first defendant)
Adriana Kalantzis (second defendant)
Maria Kalantzis (third defendant)
Vassilis Kalantzis (fourth defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Hill (plaintiff)
D Williams (fourth defendant)
C Birtles (applicant)
Solicitors:
First Choice Family Lawyers (plaintiff)
Excused (first defendant)
Self-represented (second defendant)
Whittens & McKeough (third defendant)
Sharah & Associates (fourth defendant)
Gordon Albert Salier AM (applicant)

File Number(s): 2015/374480

Judgment

These reasons for judgment deal with two outstanding matters in the administration of the estate of the late Nicholas Kalantzis.
The first issue concerns a claim for relief made by Mr Gordon Albert Salier AM by notice of motion filed by leave in court on 1 July 2019. Mr Salier has been ordered by the Court to be appointed as the administrator of the deceased's estate (although the grant has not yet issued), and has been appointed a trustee for the sale of the properties owned by the deceased in New South Wales.
The Court has already published three judgments in this matter: see Katramados v Hasapis [2018] NSWSC 948; Katramados v Hasapis (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1604; and Katramados v Hasapis (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 435.
The background facts relevant to Mr Salier's notice of motion will be found in the earlier judgments. I will describe the parties using the same names as I have used in those judgments.
Mr Salier's notice of motion primarily concerns the property described in the earlier judgments as the Campsie property. That property was, at the time of the deceased's death, owned by Julia, his widow, and the deceased as tenants in common in equal shares. Consequently, in practical terms, Julia has a right to have the property sold so that she can realise her half-interest in the property. The estate of the deceased is only entitled to the other half.
Pending the completion of formalities for…

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 Katramados v Hasapis (No 4)

Details

AGLC: Katramados v Hasapis (No 4) [2019] NSWSC 846
Case: [2019] NSWSC 846
Decision Date: 05 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Katramados v Hasapis (No 4) involved a dispute between the parties regarding the management and sale of properties held in a trust. The court was tasked with overseeing the administration of the trust and ensuring compliance with previous court orders. The dispute centred on the ability of the court-appointed trustee to sell the trust properties as per the directions made by the court in earlier proceedings. The applicants, who sought family provision orders, raised concerns about delays and the trustee's failure to adhere to the court's previous directions.

The legal issues before the court included whether the applicants' claims for family provision orders could proceed despite the delay and the introduction of new evidence that contradicted findings made in earlier judgments. Additionally, the court had to consider the implications of the new evidence on the relief sought by the applicants, and whether the applicants had properly brought these issues to the court's attention. The court also needed to determine what steps the parties needed to take before final family provision and costs orders could be made.

The court held that the applicants' claims for family provision orders could proceed despite the delay and the introduction of new evidence. The court found that the applicants had not brought the new evidence to the court's attention and that the issues raised by the new evidence were not relevant to the relief sought in the family provision claims. The court also outlined the steps that the parties needed to take before final family provision and costs orders could be made, including the need for further evidence and submissions on the issues raised by the applicants. The court ordered that the parties address these issues before final orders were made.

The court made orders that the applicants' claims for family provision orders could proceed, and that the parties needed to address certain issues before final family provision and costs orders could be made. The court also ordered that the trustee take steps to comply with the previous court orders regarding the sale of the trust properties. The court noted that the applicants would be required to address certain issues before final family provision and costs orders could be made, including the provision of further evidence and submissions on the issues raised by the applicants.

Orders