Lambrou v Lambrou (No 2)

Case [2018] VSC 244


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

TRUSTS, EQUITY & PROBATE LIST

S CI 2017 00661

CHRISTOS LAMBROU (who sues as representative of the Estate of Despina Lambrou, deceased) Plaintiff
v  
EMMANUEL GEORGE LAMBROU First Defendant
MELISSA JOANNE LAMBROU Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:

Lansdowne AsJ

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATES OF HEARING:

19 April 2018

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

16 May 2018

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

Lambrou v Lambrou (No 2)

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2018] VSC 244

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Summary judgment sought by plaintiff on part of her claim, being for breach of fiduciary duty - Defence found to have no real prospect of success – Strike out of counterclaim - Whether discretion against grant of summary judgment should be exercised pursuant to Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) s 64 – Whether compound interest should be awarded in the Court’s equitable jurisdiction or interest under Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) s 60 – Whether judgment should be stayed.

---

APPEARANCES

Counsel Solicitors
For the Plaintiff Mr J Smith Macpherson & Kelley
For the First and Second Defendants Dr J Glover Melbourne Legal Group Pty Ltd

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1

Matters raised in the Principal Reasons......................................................................................... 2

Discretion....................................................................................................................................... 2

Form of relief................................................................................................................................. 4

Parties’ submissions........................................................................................................................... 4

Plaintiff........................................................................................................................................... 4

Defendants..................................................................................................................................... 7

Discussion............................................................................................................................................ 8

Counterclaim................................................................................................................................. 8

Discretion..................................................................................................................................... 10

Intermingling of issues..................................................................................................... 10

Counterclaim and amendment to pleadings................................................................. 11

Other matters relied upon by the defendants............................................................... 11

Form of relief............................................................................................................................... 12

Interest................................................................................................................................. 13

Costs……........................................................................................................................... 18

Stay………................................................................................................................................... 18

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 19

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

  1. These reasons concern a summary judgment application brought by the late Despina Lambrou (Mrs Lambrou) before her death through her then administrator against her oldest son, Emmanuel Lambrou and his wife, Melissa Lambrou.  The claim as a whole seeks relief relating to a number of financial transactions undertaken by the first defendant in respect of the property of the plaintiff, but in the summary judgment application she sought judgment on a summary basis in respect of part only of her claim.  The plaintiff sought summary judgment against the first defendant for breach of fiduciary duty in the sum of $552,000 on the basis that he conceded that he had used that amount of the sale proceeds of his mother’s home for his own purposes at a time when he was her administrator. 

  1. After the hearing of the summary judgment application and before its determination, Mrs Lambrou sadly died.  She has now been replaced as plaintiff by her younger son, Christos, as the administrator of her intestate estate.

  1. I gave reasons for the substantive determination of the summary judgment application which were published on 29 March 2018 (Principal Reasons).[1]  In the Principal Reasons I held that the defendants have no real prospect of success in establishing a defence to the claim the subject of the summary judgment application, but I noted that counsel had not put to me explicit submissions in relation to the exercise of the discretion and I…

Continue reading Lambrou v Lambrou (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lambrou v Lambrou (No 2) [2018] VSC 244
Case
[2018] VSC 244
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Lambrou and Lambrou, with the plaintiff seeking summary judgment for a portion of her claim, specifically for breach of fiduciary duty. The counterclaim was struck out, and the court was required to determine whether the discretion against the grant of summary judgment should be exercised under section 64 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic). Additionally, the court needed to decide whether compound interest should be awarded under the Court's equitable jurisdiction or under section 60 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic). Lastly, the court had to consider whether the judgment should be stayed.

The court found that the defence had no real prospect of success, and therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the part of her claim for breach of fiduciary duty. However, the court considered whether the discretion against the grant of summary judgment should be exercised. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) and concluded that the discretion should not be exercised in this case. Regarding the award of compound interest, the court found that it should be awarded under the Court's equitable jurisdiction rather than under section 60 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic). Lastly, the court determined that there were no grounds to stay the judgment.

The court's final orders were that the defendant's counterclaim was struck out, and the plaintiff was granted summary judgment on the part of her claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The court also ordered that compound interest be awarded under the Court's equitable jurisdiction, and the judgment was not stayed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.