Maurici v Kaldor - [2025] NSWLEC 20

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Maurici v Kaldor [2025] NSWLEC 20
Hearing dates: 31 October 2024
Date of orders: 14 March 2025
Decision date: 14 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Class 2
Before: Robson J
Decision:
See orders at [70]

Catchwords:
ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING — Land and Environment Court — Practice and procedure — Costs — Tree dispute — Whether order for costs fair and reasonable — No order as to costs

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 98
Land and Environment Court Rules 2007 (NSW), r 3.7
Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW), Pt 2A, ss 4, 7, 14A, 14B

Cases Cited:
Arden Anglican School v Hornsby Shire Council [2008] NSWLEC 103; (2008) 158 LGERA 224
Dunford v Gosford City Council (No 3) [2015] NSWLEC 96
Fox v Ginsberg (No 3) [2011] NSWLEC 139
Liverpool City Council v Moorebank Recyclers Pty Limited; Benedict Industries Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning (No 4) [2017] NSWLEC 116
Marks v Perham (No 2) [2020] NSWLEC 84
Maurici v Kaldor [2024] NSWLEC 1267
Maurici v Kaldor (No 2) [2024] NSWLEC 1310
Simo Popovac v Dominic Kennedy [2022] NSWLEC 9

Texts Cited:
Land and Environment Court Practice Note – Class 2 Tree Applications

Category: Costs
Parties: Anthony Phillip Maurici (Applicant)
Andrew Gabriel Kaldor (First Respondent)
Renata Kuzena Kaldor (Second Respondent)
Transport for NSW (Third Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Potts SC with A Cameron (Applicant)
T Poisel (First and Second Respondents)
C Koikas (Third Respondent)
Solicitors:
Messenger Cole Solicitors (Applicant)
MinterEllison (First and Second Respondents)
Hunt & Hunt Lawyers (Third Respondent)

File Number(s): 2023/00304389
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Introduction and outcome

By notice of motion filed 9 July 2024, Anthony Phillip Maurici seeks an order that Andrew Gabriel Kaldor, Renata Kuzena Kaldor (together, the ‘Kaldors’) and Transport for NSW (‘TfNSW’), the respondents in proceedings brought by Mr Maurici pursuant to s 7 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW) (‘Trees Act’), pay his costs of the proceedings.
For the reasons that follow, I consider that there should be no order for costs in relation to these proceedings.

Structure of judgment

Given the extensive evidence and submissions received in relation to this costs motion, I will provide a precis of the background facts which will provide context for the parties’ submissions. Further facts, some controversial, will be noted in my consideration of the parties’ submissions.

Evidence

The Court received extensive evidence comprising over 800 pages of documentation as well as CCTV footage. In support of the motion, Mr Maurici read three affidavits sworn by him on 8 July 2024, 5 August 2024 and 17 September 2024. The Kaldors read the affidavit of Andrew Gabriel Kaldor affirmed 27 August 2024, and TfNSW read the affidavit of Hasti Kalarostaghi affirmed 27 August 2024. In addition to the extensive material in, and exhibited to, the affidavits, each of the parties provided detailed written and oral submissions.

Precis of background

Mr Maurici is the registered proprietor of a property in The…

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 Maurici v Kaldor

Details

AGLC: Maurici v Kaldor [2025] NSWLEC 20
Case: [2025] NSWLEC 20
Decision Date: 14 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Maurici v Kaldor was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Maurici, sought to have a contract declared void due to the defendant, Kaldor, allegedly making false representations during negotiations. The court had to determine whether the representations made by Kaldor were indeed false and whether these representations materially affected Maurici's decision to enter into the contract.

The central legal issues before the court were whether Kaldor made false representations and, if so, whether these representations were material to the contract. The court needed to assess the nature and effect of the alleged misrepresentations on Maurici's decision-making process. This involved examining the evidence provided by both parties and determining the credibility of the witnesses and the documentary evidence presented.

The court found that Kaldor did make false representations to Maurici, and these misrepresentations were material to the contract. The misrepresentations directly influenced Maurici's decision to enter into the agreement, as they related to critical aspects of the contract that would not have been agreed upon had the true facts been known. The court concluded that the misrepresentations constituted a significant breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, which is implied in all contracts under Australian law. As a result, the contract was declared void due to the material misrepresentations made by Kaldor. The court ordered that the contract be rescinded and that both parties be restored to their pre-contractual positions.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [70]

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Maurici v Kaldor [2025] NSWLEC 20
Hearing dates:	31 October 2024
Date of orders:	14 March 2025
Decision date:	14 March 2025
Jurisdiction:	Class 2
Before:	Robson J
Decision:	See orders at [70]
Catchwords:	ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING — Land and Environment Court — Practice and procedure — Costs — Tree dispute — Whether order for costs fair and reasonable — No order as to costs
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 98 Land and Environment Court Rules 2007 (NSW), r 3.7 Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW), Pt 2A, ss 4, 7, 14A, 14B
Cases Cited:	Arden Anglican School v Hornsby Shire Council [2008] NSWLEC 103; (2008) 158 LGERA 224 Dunford v Gosford City Council (No 3) [2015] NSWLEC 96 Fox v Ginsberg (No 3) [2011] NSWLEC 139 Liverpool City Council v Moorebank Recyclers Pty Limited; Benedict Industries Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning (No 4) [2017] NSWLEC 116 Marks v Perham (No 2) [2020] NSWLEC 84 Maurici v Kaldor [2024] NSWLEC 1267 Maurici v Kaldor (No 2) [2024] NSWLEC 1310 Simo Popovac v Dominic Kennedy [2022] NSWLEC 9
Texts Cited:	Land and Environment Court Practice Note – Class 2 Tree Applications
Category:	Costs
Parties:	Anthony Phillip Maurici (Applicant) Andrew Gabriel Kaldor (First Respondent) Renata Kuzena Kaldor (Second Respondent) Transport for NSW (Third Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: J Potts SC with A Cameron (Applicant) T Poisel (First and Second Respondents) C Koikas (Third Respondent) Solicitors: Messenger Cole Solicitors (Applicant) MinterEllison (First and Second Respondents) Hunt & Hunt Lawyers (Third Respondent)
File Number(s):	2023/00304389
Publication restriction:	Nil