Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Radovanovic v Stekovic [2024] NSWCA 129 Hearing dates: 2 May 2024 Date of orders: 30 May 2024 Decision date: 30 May 2024 Before: Meagher JA at [1];
Gleeson JA at [2];
Payne JA at [3]Decision: (1) Appeal dismissed.
(2) Appellant to pay the respondents’ costs.
Catchwords: CONTRACTS — formation — acceptance of Calderbank offer — whether parties reached binding agreement to settle proceedings — meaning of “without prejudice save as to costs” — where settlement agreement contemplated execution of deed — whether entry into deed was a condition precedent — whether settlement agreement incomplete due to missing key term — whether entry into Calderbank offer indicated intention immediately to be bound
Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) s 138
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 20.26
Cases Cited: Air Great Lakes Pty Ltd v K S Easter (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 309
Baulkham Hills Private Hospital Pty Ltd v G R Securities Pty Ltd (1986) 40 NSWLR 622
Booker Industries Pty Ltd v Wilson Parking (Qld) Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 600; [1982] HCA 53
Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333
Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 471; [2004] HCA 55
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95; [2002] HCA 8
Godecke v Kirwan (1973) 129 CLR 629
G R Securities Pty Ltd v Baulkham Hills Private Hospital Pty Ltd (1986) 40 NSWLR 631
Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353
Narayan v Narayan [2022] NSWSC 1685
Ofria v Cameron (No 2) [2008] NSWCA 242
Pavlovic v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd (2015) 90 NSWLR 605; [2015] NSWCA 313
Stellar Vision Operations Pty Ltd v Hills Health Solutions Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCA 102
Trustee for the Salvation Army (NSW) Property Trust v Becker (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 194
Von Hatzfeldt-Wildenburg v Alexander [1912] 1 Ch 284
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Goran Radovanovic (appellant)
Milivoj Stekovic (first respondent)
Jovanka Stekovic (second respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
L Collaris (appellant)
A Davis (respondents)
Warlows Legal (appellant)
Chamberlains Law Firm (respondents)
File Number(s): 2023/465559 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court of NSW
- Jurisdiction:
- Equity
- Citation:
- Date of Decision:
- 29 November 2023
- Before:
- McGrath J
- File Number(s):
- 2022/00385224
HEADNOTE
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
The appellant was the sole registered proprietor of real property in Queanbeyan, New South Wales, which in 2020 he agreed to sell for $675,000. Before settlement, the appellant’s sister and her husband (the respondents) asserted an equitable interest in the property and placed a caveat on its title. In October 2020, to enable settlement to proceed, the parties (who were represented by solicitors) came to an agreement: the respondents would remove the caveat and the appellant’s conveyancing solicitor, BDN, would retain the…
Continue reading Radovanovic v Stekovic
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Radovanovic v Stekovic [2024] NSWCA 129
- Case
- [2024] NSWCA 129
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement, the meaning and effect of the phrase "without prejudice save as to costs" in the context of the offer, whether the execution of a deed was a condition precedent to the settlement, and whether the settlement agreement was incomplete due to a missing key term. The court also considered whether the appellant's entry into the Calderbank offer indicated an intention to be immediately bound.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the parties had not reached a binding settlement agreement. The court reasoned that the Calderbank offer, while accepted, contemplated the execution of a formal deed. This execution was considered a condition precedent to the settlement becoming binding. Furthermore, the court determined that a key term was missing from the purported agreement, rendering it incomplete. Consequently, the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Appeal dismissed.
(2) Appellant to pay the respondents’ 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.