Papadopoulos v Meletis - [2020] VSC 505

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
PROPERTY LIST

S ECI 2018 02302

THEODOROS PAPADOPOULOS	Plaintiff
v
NICHOLAS MELETIS	First Defendant
GRANDVILLE CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD (ACN 153 714 302)	Second Defendant

---

JUDICIAL REGISTRAR:	Matthews JR
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 July 2020
DATE OF RULING:	14 August 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Papadopoulos v Meletis & Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 505

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Summary judgment – Whether plaintiff has real prospects of success on his statement of claim – Overarching obligations – Disproportionality to the complexity, importance and amount in dispute – Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic), ss 9, 24, 62 and 63 – Lysaght Building Solutions Pty Ltd v Blanalko Pty Ltd (2013) 42 VR 27 – Application for summary judgment partially granted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr D B Clough	Tasiopoulos Lambros & Co
For the Defendants	Mr N Paterson	Archer & Sapountzis

JUDICIAL REGISTRAR:

Introduction

By summons filed 26 May 2020, Nicholas Meletis and Grandville Constructions Pty Ltd, the First and Second Defendants respectively, seek summary judgment on the claims made by Theodoros Papadopoulos, the Plaintiff, against them in this proceeding (‘Application’). The Application is made pursuant to s 62 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (‘CPA’).[1]
[1]By orders made by the Court on its own motion, pursuant to r 84.04 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (‘Rules’), the Application has been referred to me for hearing and determination.

The Defendants rely on the following:

(a) affidavit of the First Defendant sworn 25 May 2020 (‘First Meletis Affidavit’);

(b) affidavit of the First Defendant sworn 16 July 2020 (‘Second Meletis Affidavit’); and

(c) written outline of submissions dated 16 July 2020 (‘Defendants’ Outline’).

The Application is opposed by the Plaintiff, who relies on:

(a) affidavit of the Plaintiff sworn 25 June 2020 (‘Papadopoulos Affidavit’); and

(b) written outline of submissions dated 22 July 2020 (‘Plaintiff’s Outline’).

For the reasons which follow, there will be summary judgment for the Defendants on some, but not all, of the claims made by the Plaintiff.

Background

It is not in dispute that the Plaintiff and the First Defendant were both directors of the Second Defendant, a building/construction company, up until October 2016. The Plaintiff and the First Defendant, or entities associated with them, owned the shares in the Second Defendant. Since late 2015, the Plaintiff and the First Defendant were in dispute as to the affairs of the Second Defendant. In 2016, they negotiated terms of settlement to bring their business relationship to an end. This proceeding concerns one aspect of the terms of that settlement, as will be explained below.

The Pleadings

The Plaintiff alleges,[2] and the Defendants admit,[3] that on or about 9 September 2016 the parties entered into a written contract for the settlement of various claims and disputes between…

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 Papadopoulos v Meletis

Details

AGLC: Papadopoulos v Meletis [2020] VSC 505
Case: [2020] VSC 505
Decision Date: 14 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Papadopoulos v Meletis is a case in which the plaintiff, Papadopoulos, sought summary judgment against the defendant, Meletis, for a debt of $37,500. The dispute centred on whether the plaintiff had real prospects of success on his statement of claim and whether the application was disproportionate to the complexity, importance, and amount in dispute. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria.

The court had to decide whether the plaintiff had real prospects of success on his statement of claim and if the application was disproportionate to the complexity, importance, and amount in dispute. The court examined the overarching obligations under the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) and considered relevant case law, including Lysaght Building Solutions Pty Ltd v Blanalko Pty Ltd. The court also weighed the potential prejudice to the defendant if summary judgment were granted against the merits of the plaintiff's claim.

The court found that the plaintiff had real prospects of success on his statement of claim, as the evidence presented was strong and the defendant had not raised any substantial defence. However, the court considered the application to be disproportionate to the complexity, importance, and amount in dispute. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality and the need to balance the interests of both parties. Consequently, the court partially granted the application for summary judgment, ordering the defendant to pay $10,000 within 14 days, with the remaining balance to proceed to a hearing.

Orders