Legal Research
Cases
Koulouris v Haidaris (No 3)

Koulouris v Haidaris (No 3)

Link copied

Case Copied 6 May 2020 54 min read

Contents

On this page

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL COURT

S ECI 2019 01420

ANDREAS KOULOURIS	Plaintiff
v
NIKOLAOS HAIDARIS	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	CONNOCK J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 March 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 May 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Koulouris v Haidaris (No 3)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 240

---

CONTEMPT OF COURT – Civil or criminal contempt – Freezing order – Failure to file affidavit regarding assets and financial position – Relevant principles – Contempt admitted – Penalty – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) ords 66, 75 – Civil contempt application – Bankrupt defendant – Bankruptcy – Fine imposed – Declaration.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
The Plaintiff appeared in person
For the Defendant	Mr P Lithgow

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction and Summary

These reasons address the only remaining issue in the proceeding, which is a contempt charge brought by the plaintiff against the defendant in connection with the defendant’s failure to file and serve an affidavit setting out certain information regarding his assets and financial position. The affidavit was required by an order of Robson J made on 11 April 2019 (Affidavit Order).

The substantive issues in this proceeding relate to a dispute regarding the defendant’s failure to repay to the plaintiff certain loan advances totalling $1,080,000 (Loan Advances).[1] The defendant admitted that the Loan Advances were made and not repaid and said that he had a gambling addiction that had resulted in the Loan Advances and other amounts being used for gambling and lost, rather than being advanced by way of loans to property developers as he had told the plaintiff they would be.
[1]The total of the funds advanced by way of loan to the defendant was $1,170,000, of which only $90,000 had been repaid.

In December 2019 I granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the Loan Advances, interest, and costs. See Koulouris v Haidaris (No 2) (Koulouris No 2).[2]
[2][2019] VSC 806.

Prior to seeking summary judgment the plaintiff filed and served a summons,[3] which sought an order that the defendant be punished for contempt of court pursuant to r 75.11 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) (Rules). Timetabling directions were made, but the hearing of the application was deferred pending the completion of other steps in the proceeding, including the hearing and determination of the plaintiff’s summary judgment application.
[3]Filed 17 September 2019.

The Affidavit Order was recorded in paragraph 3 of orders made by Robson J on 11 April 2019 (11 April Orders) as follows:

The defendant shall file and serve an affidavit in compliance with paragraph 8.1 of the interim freezing order, on or by 4.00 pm on 25 April 2019.

Paragraph 1 of the 11 April Orders addressed the making of the interim freezing order in the following terms:

The Court makes an interim freezing order in the form attached…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Koulouris v Haidaris (No 3) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] VSC 240
Decision Date: 6 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Koulouris v Haidaris (No 3), the matter was before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff sought to enforce a freezing order against the bankrupt defendant, who failed to comply with the order by not filing an affidavit regarding their assets and financial position. The plaintiff sought a declaration of contempt and a fine against the defendant. The central legal issue the court had to address was whether the defendant's failure to comply with the freezing order constituted civil contempt and what penalty, if any, should be imposed.

The court considered the principles relevant to civil contempt, particularly focusing on the defendant's wilful disregard of the court's orders. Given that the defendant admitted to the contempt and was already bankrupt, the court had to determine an appropriate penalty. The court recognised that the primary purpose of a fine in such circumstances is to ensure compliance with court orders rather than to punish the contemnor. After evaluating the defendant's financial situation and the need for deterrence, the court imposed a fine and made a declaration of contempt.

The court's decision concluded with an order for the defendant to pay a fine of $5,000 within 28 days and a declaration that the defendant was in contempt of court for failing to comply with the freezing order. This ruling underscored the importance of adhering to court orders and the consequences of non-compliance, particularly in cases involving bankruptcy and asset disclosure.

Orders