MICHAUD -v- STEFANOVSKI [2016] WASCA 85
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2016] WASCA 85 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACV:3/2015 | 4 APRIL 2016 | |
| Coram: | MARTIN CJ BUSS JA MURPHY JA | 27/05/16 | |
| 18 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ROGER MARCEL MICHAUD DANNY DRAGI STEFANOVSKI |
Catchwords: | Evidence Agreement for loan Plaintiff found to give false evidence that loan agreement had been reduced to writing Forged document Whether judge erred in accepting plaintiff's evidence as to oral agreement for loan Whether error of law in accepting plaintiff's evidence Principles applicable to appellate review Alleged miscarriage of justice based on counsel's alleged incompetence in defending plaintiff's claim Whether evidence of incompetence as alleged Loan agreement No term for repayment agreed Loan created an immediate debt |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission [1993] HCA 78; (1993) 177 CLR 472 Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 55; (2004) 218 CLR 471 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118 Heydon v Perpetual Executors Trustees & Agency Co (WA) Ltd (1930) 45 CLR 111 Jazairy v Najjar (1998) 27 MVR 498 Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas [2004] HCA 35; (2004) 218 CLR 451 State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) [1999] HCA 3; (1999) 160 ALR 588 Stefanovski v Michaud [2014] WADC 141 Varmedja v Varmedja [2008] NSWCA 177 Warley Pty Ltd v Adco Constructions Pty Ltd (1988) 8 BCL 300 Young v Queensland Trustees Ltd [1956] HCA 51; (1956) 99 CLR 560 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : MICHAUD -v- STEFANOVSKI [2016] WASCA 85 CORAM : MARTIN CJ
- BUSS JA
MURPHY JA
- Appellant
AND
DANNY DRAGI STEFANOVSKI
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MCCANN DCJ
Citation : STEFANOVSKI -v- MICHAUD [2014] WADC 141
File No : CIV 3850 of 2011
Catchwords:
Evidence - Agreement for loan - Plaintiff found to give false evidence that loan agreement had been reduced to writing - Forged document - Whether judge erred in accepting plaintiff's evidence as to oral agreement for loan - Whether error of law in accepting plaintiff's evidence - Principles applicable to appellate review - Alleged miscarriage of justice based on counsel's alleged incompetence in defending plaintiff's claim - Whether evidence of incompetence as alleged
Loan agreement - No term for repayment agreed - Loan created an immediate debt
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr R W Bower
Respondent : Mr C McIntosh
Solicitors:
Appellant : Corser & Corser
Respondent : Swan River Law
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Browne…
Continue reading Michaud v Stefanovski
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Michaud v Stefanovski [2016] WASCA 85
- Case
- [2016] WASCA 85
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Michaud v Stefanovski involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Michaud, and the defendant, Stefanovski, regarding a loan agreement. The plaintiff claimed that an oral loan agreement had been entered into with the defendant, which was later reduced to a written document that was subsequently found to be a forgery. The case was heard in the court of appeal, with the trial judge's decision being challenged on several grounds.
The primary legal issues in the case were whether the trial judge had erred in accepting the plaintiff's evidence regarding the oral loan agreement, and whether there was any evidence of incompetence on the part of the plaintiff's counsel that would warrant a finding of a miscarriage of justice. The defendant argued that the trial judge should not have accepted the plaintiff's evidence, as it was found that the written document evidencing the loan agreement was a forgery. The defendant also contended that the plaintiff's counsel was incompetent in defending the plaintiff's claim, and that this incompetence had led to a miscarriage of justice.
The court of appeal found that the trial judge had not erred in accepting the plaintiff's evidence regarding the oral loan agreement. The court held that the principles applicable to appellate review required a degree of deference to the trial judge's findings of fact, and that there was no evidence of incompetence on the part of the plaintiff's counsel that would warrant a finding of a miscarriage of justice. The court further found that the loan agreement created an immediate debt, as no term for repayment had been agreed upon. As such, the appeal was dismissed, and the trial judge's decision was upheld.
The primary legal issues in the case were whether the trial judge had erred in accepting the plaintiff's evidence regarding the oral loan agreement, and whether there was any evidence of incompetence on the part of the plaintiff's counsel that would warrant a finding of a miscarriage of justice. The defendant argued that the trial judge should not have accepted the plaintiff's evidence, as it was found that the written document evidencing the loan agreement was a forgery. The defendant also contended that the plaintiff's counsel was incompetent in defending the plaintiff's claim, and that this incompetence had led to a miscarriage of justice.
The court of appeal found that the trial judge had not erred in accepting the plaintiff's evidence regarding the oral loan agreement. The court held that the principles applicable to appellate review required a degree of deference to the trial judge's findings of fact, and that there was no evidence of incompetence on the part of the plaintiff's counsel that would warrant a finding of a miscarriage of justice. The court further found that the loan agreement created an immediate debt, as no term for repayment had been agreed upon. As such, the appeal was dismissed, and the trial judge's decision was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
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.