Legal Research
Cases
Poulos v Elliott

Poulos v Elliott

Case [2019] NSWSC 423 12 April 2019

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Poulos v Elliott [2019] NSWSC 423
Hearing dates: 12 April 2019
Date of orders: 12 April 2019
Decision date: 12 April 2019
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Kunc J
Decision:
Proceedings dismissed as against second defendant; Plaintiff to pay second defendant’s costs on the indemnity basis

Catchwords: JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS — Amending, varying and setting aside — Fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts — Plaintiff applies to set aside judgment after 30 years for alleged fraud
Cases Cited: Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Hacide Pty Limited; unreported; Sully J; 28 November 1989 Hacide Pty Limited v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1991] NSWCA 134
Wentworth v Rogers (No 5) (1986) 6 NSWLR 535
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Patricia Poulos (Plaintiff)
Commonwealth Bank of Australia (Second defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Poulos (Plaintiff in person)
F. Roughley and J. Entwistle (Second Defendant)
Solicitors:
Gadens (Second Defendant)

File Number(s): 2019/10906
Publication restriction: No

ex tempore Judgment (revised)

Summary

Nearly 30 years ago the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (the “Bank") obtained orders for possession against Hacide Pty Limited (“Hacide”) of a property to which I will refer as "No 52". No 52 was the home of the Poulos family.
The order for possession was made after a fully contested hearing before Sully J sitting in the Common Law Division of this Court (Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Hacide Pty Limited; unreported; 28 November 1989 (the "Sully J Judgment")). One of the other defendants in those proceedings was the current plaintiff, Mrs Patricia Poulos.
A subsequent appeal against his Honour's decision was dismissed unanimously: Hacide Pty Limited v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1991] NSWCA 134 (the “CA Judgment”).
By statement of claim filed on 11 January 2018, Mrs Poulos commenced these proceedings against Mr John Dorman Elliott and the Bank. Mr Elliott has not been served and has taken no part in the hearing before me today. Insofar as the Bank is concerned, Mrs Poulos' statement of claim seeks to have the orders made by Sully J (and confirmed by the Court of Appeal) set aside on the ground of fraud.
Three motions were heard by the Court today:

A notice of motion filed by the Bank on 15 March 2019 seeking orders that, as against the Bank, the statement of claim be dismissed, permanently stayed or struck out with no leave to replead.

A notice of motion filed by Mrs Poulos on 19 February 2019 seeking leave to file an amended statement of claim.

A notice of motion filed by Mrs Poulos on 2 April 2019 seeking orders that the Bank's motion be dismissed and for summary judgment against both Mr Elliott and the Bank.

The Bank has demonstrated that the claims made by Mrs Poulos in her statement of claim and the proposed amended statement of claim are an attempt to relitigate the issues that were the subject of the Sully J Judgment and the CA Judgment. In the absence of fraud,…

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 Poulos v Elliott

Details

AGLC: Poulos v Elliott [2019] NSWSC 423
Case: [2019] NSWSC 423
Decision Date: 12 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Poulos v Elliott involved a long-standing dispute between the plaintiff, Mr Poulos, and the defendant, Mr Elliott. The plaintiff sought to set aside a judgment entered against him more than 30 years ago on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of material facts. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The plaintiff alleged that he had been misled by the defendant into entering into a property transaction that resulted in significant financial loss. The defendant denied any wrongdoing and argued that the plaintiff's claims were statute-barred and an abuse of process.

The central legal issues in the case revolved around the availability of relief for alleged fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of material facts after such a long period had elapsed. The court had to consider whether the plaintiff's claims were barred by limitation periods and whether it was appropriate to grant relief in the circumstances. The court also needed to assess the credibility of the plaintiff's evidence and determine whether the alleged fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of material facts had occurred.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the principles of equity and the discretion available to the court to grant relief in appropriate circumstances. The court found that the plaintiff had not met the onus of proof to establish the alleged fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of material facts. The court also found that the plaintiff's claims were statute-barred and that there was no valid reason to depart from the normal limitation periods. The court held that the plaintiff's application to set aside the judgment was an abuse of process and dismissed the application. The court emphasised the importance of the principles of finality and certainty in legal proceedings and the need to balance those principles with the need to ensure justice in individual cases.

The court made no orders as to costs.

Orders