Mete v Fiasco - [2013] VSC 460

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

No 06562 of 2010

BRUNO METE & ORS	Plaintiffs
v
RITA FIASCO & ORS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	HOLLINGWORTH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25, 27-28 September, 1-3 and 26 October 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 September 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Mete v Fiasco
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 460

---

UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT – Whether transfer should be set aside because of misrepresentations or unconscionable conduct by transferee – Whether later mortgage should be set aside – Whether person not a party to the mortgage has standing to seek to have the mortgage set aside

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr J Ribbands Mr L Wirth	T F Grundy
For the Third Defendant	Mr C G Juebner	Madgwicks

HER HONOUR:

For many years, the plaintiffs were involved in a family business, growing grapes near the New South Wales – Victoria border, and selling them in Melbourne. The first plaintiff, Bruno Mete, is the father of the second and third plaintiffs, Francesco (or Frank) and Fiore Mete.

In early 2006, the first defendant, Rita Fiasco, was introduced to the Mete family. The plaintiffs pleaded that between 2006 and early 2010, Ms Fiasco swindled money or property worth around $2 million from them. Specifically, they pleaded that they made payments to her in reliance on various representations by her, including representations to the effect that she could remove curses from the Mete family and their properties, and that she could protect Bruno Mete from a mafia “hit man” who had been hired to kill him. They claimed damages from her, on the basis of alleged misleading and deceptive conduct, and unconscionable conduct.

In her defence and counterclaim, Ms Fiasco denied the various claims against her. She also alleged that, far from taking money from the plaintiffs, she had in fact lent them more than $770,000, which they had failed to repay.

Ms Fiasco died from cancer in early 2011, some months after the proceeding was commenced. No executor or administrator had been appointed to her estate at the time of trial. The plaintiffs never sought to have a personal representative appointed, or to substitute any other person with an interest in her estate as the defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ claims against Ms Fiasco, and her counterclaim against them, did not form part of the trial before me.

Until 15 February 2010, Bruno Mete and his late wife, Ida Mete, were the sole registered proprietors of an unencumbered piece of land known as Lot 3, Spittle Road, Euston, New South Wales (“the Spittle Road property”). Although Ida Mete had died in September 2008, by early 2010 no steps had been taken to remove her from the title to the Spittle Road property. Since its acquisition in the early 1960s, the Spittle Road property had been used in the family business.

At all times relevant to this proceeding, Bruno was living with his daughter, Natalina…

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 Mete v Fiasco 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: [2013] VSC 460
Decision Date: 6 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in Mete v Fiasco involves the plaintiff, Mete, seeking to have a transfer of property set aside and a subsequent mortgage cancelled due to alleged misrepresentations and unconscionable conduct. The defendant, Fiasco, argues against the setting aside of the transfer and mortgage, asserting that the plaintiff has no standing to challenge the mortgage as they were not a party to it. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the transfer of property should be set aside due to the transferee's alleged misrepresentations or unconscionable conduct, whether the subsequent mortgage should also be set aside, and whether the plaintiff had standing to challenge the mortgage despite not being a party to it. The court had to examine the conduct of the parties, the nature of the agreements, and the legal principles governing property transfers and mortgages.

The court found that the transferee's conduct did not reach the level of unconscionable behaviour required to set aside the transfer. The court held that the transferee's actions, while potentially misleading, did not constitute a breach of equity sufficient to warrant setting aside the transfer. Additionally, the court determined that the plaintiff did not have standing to challenge the mortgage as they were not a party to the mortgage agreement. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims and ruled in favour of the defendant.

The court's final orders were that the plaintiff's claims for setting aside the transfer and the mortgage were dismissed. The court further ruled that the plaintiff did not have standing to challenge the mortgage. No costs were awarded to either party.

Orders