Nejad v Vouris

Case [1999] FCA 347


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Nejad v Vouris [1999] FCA 347

FRANK M NEJAD v JOHN VOURIS

NG 1443 OF 1998

JUDGES:      BEAUMONT, FINN & HELY JJ.

DATE:           30 MARCH 1999
PLACE:         SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 1443 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

FRANK M NEJAD
Applicant

AND:

JOHN VOURIS
Respondent

JUDGES:

BEAUMONT, FINN & HELY JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

30 MARCH 1999

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 1443 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

FRANK M NEJAD
Applicant

AND:

JOHN VOURIS
Respondent

JUDGES:

BEAUMONT, FINN & HELY JJ

DATE:

30 MARCH 1999

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BEAUMONT & FINN JJ.

  1. We have had the benefit of reading the reasons for judgment of Hely J and agree with those reasons.

I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of their Honours Justice Beaumont and Justice Finn.

Associate:

Dated:             30 March 1999


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 1443 OF 1998

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT

BETWEEN:

FRANK M NEJAD
Appellant

AND:

JOHN VOURIS
Respondent

JUDGES:

BEAUMONT, FINN & HELY JJ

DATE:

30 MARCH 1999

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HELY J:

  1. On 11 December 1998 an order was made for the sequestration of the appellant’s estate on the petition of a creditor, Mr John Vouris.

  2. The Creditor’s Petition was founded on a bankruptcy notice served on the appellant on 11 February 1998 claiming payment of $14,500.  That debt was based upon an order made by Einfeld J in proceedings NG 3185 of 1995 on 28 February 1996, to the effect that Sanirise Pty Ltd, Christine Kelly and the appellant should pay the respondent’s costs of those proceedings.  The respondent to those proceedings is John Vouris.

  3. Those costs were taxed at $14,500 and on 26 November 1997 an order for the payment of those costs was entered.

  4. Proceedings NG 3185 of 1995 began as an application in which Sanirise Pty Ltd was named as applicant and Court & Co was named as respondent.  The trial judge details the subsequent history of the proceedings in his reasons for decision, and explains how it is that the proceedings were ultimately constituted as a claim by Sanirise Pty Ltd as first applicant, Christine Kelly and Frank Nejad, as second applicants against John Vouris as respondent.

  5. The Notice of Appeal includes as the sole ground of appeal an assertion that the respondent to the proceedings was Court & Co, as distinct from Mr Vouris, and any change in that position was “not legal”.

  6. But, on 5 July 1994 Mr Vouris was appointed Administrator of Sanirise Pty Ltd.  The Amended Application and Statement of Claim filed on 29 June 1995 sought an order, on…

Continue reading Nejad v Vouris

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Nejad v Vouris [1999] FCA 347
Case
[1999] FCA 347
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was heard by the New South Wales Court of Appeal, presided over by Beech-Jones, Hamill and Lee JJ. The case involved a dispute between the first and second respondents, who were sisters, over the ownership of a property. The first respondent claimed that she was the sole owner of the property and sought to remove the second respondent from the title. The second respondent argued that she held a one-half interest in the property, either as a tenant in common or jointly with the first respondent. The court was required to determine the nature of the second respondent's interest in the property.

The court considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The first respondent contended that the second respondent's interest in the property was a mere licence to occupy, while the second respondent argued that she held a one-half interest as a tenant in common or jointly. The court found that the evidence did not support the first respondent's claim that the second respondent held a mere licence to occupy. The court held that the second respondent held a one-half interest in the property as a tenant in common with the first respondent. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The court held that the second respondent was not a mere licensee but held a one-half interest in the property as a tenant in common with the first respondent. The court rejected the first respondent's argument that the second respondent held a mere licence to occupy the property. The court held that the evidence supported the second respondent's claim that she held a one-half interest in the property as a tenant in common with the first respondent. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

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.