JUDGE:	Delany J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 September 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 September 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Kostakis v Executive Law Group
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 605

---

PROPERTY LAW — Proposed transfer and release to the purchaser of deposit money under contract for the sale of land — Condition in deed of variation enuring for the benefit of the purchaser — Proceeding by vendor client against former solicitor seeking transfer of deposit moneys — Transfer not permitted — Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic) ss 24, 27 — Whether notice under s 27 of the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic) is effective — 68 Bridge Road Land Pty Ltd v GLP Batesford Holdings Pty Ltd [2023] VSCA 325, Aurumstone Pty Ltd v Yarra Bank Developments Pty Ltd [2017] VSC 502, followed.

CONTRACT — Construction —Variation deed — Where clause introduced by variation inconsistent with standard clause in contract of sale — Where to give effect to the words in the standard clause mean the clause in the deed of variation could perform no work.

FREEZING ORDER — Application to vary to permit payment of entities incorporated overseas conducting business in Dubai — Application refused — Dispute about whether certain expenses are captured by exceptions in freezing order permitting the payment of reasonable living expenses and ordinary business expenses.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Freezing order in place — Need for prompt trial given existing expenditure by defendants on legal costs and the prospect of erosion of limited resources due to expenditure permitted by carve‑outs from freezing order — Defence not yet filed — Interlocutory skirmishes taking up too many court days and resources — Page and time limits imposed — Timetable for completion of steps prior to trial including expert evidence revised to bring forward date of readiness for trial — Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) ss 7(1), 8, Part 4.2.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr D Carlile	Moray & Agnew Lawyers
For the Defendant	Ms M Rozner	Executive Law Group
For Refuse to Lose Pty Ltd and Synochi Pty Ltd	Dr O Bigos KC Mr M Garrett	Tisher Liner FC Law

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. Background................................................................................................................................... 1

B.. The orders contended for........................................................................................................... 8

C. The facts....................................................................................................................................... 10

D. The Sale of Land Act................................................................................................................. 11

D.1... The legislation.................................................................................................................... 11
D.2. . Previous decisions concerning ss 24–28 of the Sale of Land Act................................ 14

E... Applying the Sale of Land Act to the facts........................................................................... 19

E.1. . Submissions........................................................................................................................ 19
Kostakis parties’ submissions................................................................................. 19
RTL’s submissions.................................................................................................... 21
ELG’s submissions.................................................................................................... 24

E.2... Consideration and disposition........................................................................................ 26
Justiciability and standing....................................................................................... 26
Section 27(2)(a) is not satisfied................................................................................ 27
Paragraph 3 of the s 27 statement is not an answer............................................. 31
The s 27 statement..................................................................................................... 31

F. . Transfer…

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 Kostakis v Executive Law Group

Details

AGLC: Kostakis v Executive Law Group [2025] VSC 605
Case: [2025] VSC 605
Decision Date: 23 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kostakis v Executive Law Group involved a dispute between Mrs Elianne Kostakis, a vendor, and Executive Law Group (ELG), her former solicitors, concerning deposit moneys held by ELG in its trust account. The dispute arose in the context of the sale of property at 67 Were Street, Brighton, Victoria. Mrs Kostakis sought to transfer the deposit moneys to her new solicitors, Jafer Lawyers, to meet various expenses. ELG opposed the transfer, asserting a lien over unpaid legal fees and contending that the transfer would contravene the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic) (Sale of Land Act). The Court was required to determine whether the deposit moneys could be released to Mrs Kostakis and whether the freezing orders should be varied to permit the payment of expenses associated with businesses in Dubai. The Court found that the deposit moneys could not be released to Mrs Kostakis. Clause 3(b)(ii) of the Variation Deed, which varied the original contract of sale, enured for the benefit of the purchaser and therefore fell within s 27(2)(a) of the Sale of Land Act, which prohibits the release of deposit moneys where a condition enures for the benefit of the purchaser. The Court also held that the s 27 statement provided by Mrs Kostakis was ineffective because it did not comply with the requirements of s 27(3)(a) of the Sale of Land Act. Furthermore, the Court refused to vary the freezing orders to permit the payment of expenses associated with the Dubai businesses, finding that the onus on the Kostakis parties to establish that the expenses could not be met from unfrozen assets had not been discharged. The Court ordered that the deposit moneys remain in ELG's trust account and that the ELG Proceeding be dismissed with costs.

Orders