Saitannis v Katsolos (No 2) - [2023] NSWSC 146

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Saitannis v Katsolos (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 146
Hearing dates: 5 - 9 September 2022
Date of orders: 27 February 2023
Decision date: 27 February 2023
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Robb J
Decision:
The defendant to pay the plaintiffs $800,000 in equitable compensation. The plaintiffs to pay the defendant $24,000, offset against the equitable compensation payable by the defendant. Parties to bear their own costs. Consequential orders noting the agreement of the parties on certain details regarding the sale of the property the subject of the primary judgment. See [54] for orders.

Catchwords:
EQUITY — equitable remedies — equitable compensation — where plaintiffs’ beneficial interest in real property not established — where parties have agreed on proposed orders
JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS — costs — no order as to costs with the intent that the parties bear their own costs

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 98(1), 100
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 42.1

Cases Cited:
Elite Protective Personnel Pty Ltd v Salmon (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 373
Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 425
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72
Saitannis v Katsolos [2022] NSWSC 1468
Waterman v Gerling Australia Insurance Co Pty Ltd (No 2) [2005] NSWSC 1111

Category: Consequential orders
Parties: Helen Saitannis (First Plaintiff)
Louis Saitannis (Second Plaintiff)
Irene Katsolos (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
CD Wood SC & JRB Pearson (Plaintiffs)
R O’Neill (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Shad Partners (Plaintiffs)
McDonnell Schroder Solicitors (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2020/00197166

JUDGMENT

I published the primary judgment in these proceedings on 27 October 2022 following a hearing that took place in the period 5 to 9 September 2022: Saitannis v Katsolos [2022] NSWSC 1468 (“J”).
These reasons deal with the final orders to be made in the proceedings, including the order as to costs.
As will be explained below, the primary judgment did not finally determine the issue of liability or the appropriate orders to be made. That was because both parties had not succeeded in establishing the relatively extreme positions that they adopted in the proceedings, and it had become apparent to me during the course of the hearing that the just outcome that was supported by the evidence was one that had not explicitly been sought by either party. As I will explain, at the end of the primary judgment I invited the parties to confer to see whether they could agree to final orders that would be most convenient to both sides.
In conformity with the approach adopted by the parties and in the primary judgment, and without meaning any disrespect, I will refer to the parties by their given names.
In accordance with directions that I made on 1 December 2022, Irene delivered submissions and draft short minutes of order on 7 December 2022. Helen and Louis replied by their submissions and draft short minutes of order on 16 December 2022. Irene delivered a reply dated 19 December…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Saitannis v Katsolos (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] NSWSC 146
Decision Date: 27 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Saitannis v Katsolos (No 2) was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiffs sought equitable compensation against the defendant for their beneficial interest in certain real property. The case arose out of a dispute between the parties regarding their respective interests in the property, which was purchased by the defendant and registered in his name. The plaintiffs claimed that they had an equitable interest in the property, but this was not established. The parties had agreed on proposed orders, which included the payment of equitable compensation to the plaintiffs. The court was required to determine the appropriate amount of equitable compensation and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to any other equitable remedies.

The court considered the nature of the dispute and the terms of the proposed orders. The plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to equitable compensation for their beneficial interest in the property. However, the court noted that the plaintiffs had not established their beneficial interest in the property, and therefore, they were not entitled to equitable compensation. The court also considered whether the plaintiffs were entitled to any other equitable remedies, such as an order for specific performance or an order for the registration of their beneficial interest in the property. The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any other equitable remedies.

The court concluded that the appropriate amount of equitable compensation was zero, as the plaintiffs had not established their beneficial interest in the property. The court also held that there were no other equitable remedies available to the plaintiffs. The court made no order as to costs, with the intent that the parties bear their own costs. The court's decision was based on the terms of the proposed orders and the evidence presented by the parties. The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any equitable remedies, and therefore, the defendant was not liable for any equitable compensation. The court's decision was final, and there was no scope for further appeal.

Orders