Legal Research
Cases
Samimi v Djamshidi

Samimi v Djamshidi

Case [2018] NSWSC 1944 14 December 2018

Equitable Fraud

Summary Judgment

Relief Against Underhand Bargains

Equity

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Samimi v Djamshidi [2018] NSWSC 1944
Hearing dates: 6 August; 15 October; 20 November 2018
Date of orders: 14 December 2018
Decision date: 14 December 2018
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Parker J
Decision:
Order that the proceedings be dismissed as against the second defendant.

Catchwords:
EQUITY – equitable fraud – fourth category of Earl of Chesterfield v Janssen (1751) 2 Ves Sen 125; 28 ER 82 – relief against “underhand bargains” – general principles – need for a transaction – equitable intervention only where remedies at law are unavailable or inadequate
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – applications – summary dismissal – claim for equitable fraud – no reasonable cause of action disclosed
Legislation Cited: Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth), s 5
Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld)
Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (Qld), ss 71, 111C
Cases Cited: Alati v Kruger (1955) 94 CLR 216; [1955] HCA 64
Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2012) 247 CLR 205; [2012] HCA 30
Dauglish v Tennent (1866) LR 2 QB 49
Earl of Chesterfield v Janssen (1751) 2 Ves Sen 125; 28 ER 82
Hermann v Charlesworth [1905] 2 KB 123
Higgins v Pitt (1849) 4 Ex 312; 154 ER 1231
Mahony v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCA 323
McKernan v Fraser (1931) 46 CLR 343; [1931] HCA 54
Mehran Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Djamshidi Unit Trust v Queensland Building Services Authority [2011] QCAT 420
Northern Territory v Mengel (1995) 185 CLR 307; [1995] HCA 65
Westpac Banking Corporation v The Bell Group Ltd (in liq) (No 3) (2012) 44 WAR 1; [2012] WASCA 157
Williams v Hursey (1959) 103 CLR 30; [1959] HCA 51
Woodhouse v Shepley (1742) 2 Atk 535; 26 ER 721
Texts Cited: John McGhee QC (ed), Snell’s Equity (Sweet & Maxwell, 31st ed, 2005)
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Kamran Samimi (First Plaintiff/First Respondent)
Mojgan Samimi (Second Plaintiff/Second Respondent)
Mehran Djamshidi (First Defendant/First Applicant)
Queensland Building and Construction Commission (Second Defendant/Second Applicant)
Representation:
Counsel:
R Freeman (First and Second Plaintiffs/First and Second Respondents)
JE Thomson (First Defendant/First Applicant)
GD McDonald (Second Defendant/Second Applicant)
Solicitors:
Phontos Legal (First and Second Plaintiffs/First and Second Respondent)
Cooper Grace Ward Lawyers (First Defendant/First Applicant)
Rostron Carlyle Rojas Lawyers (Second Defendant/Second Applicant)

File Number(s): 2017/372100
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Over three days, 6 August, 15 October and 20 November, I heard applications by both of the defendants in these proceedings for the plaintiffs’ claims against them to be summarily dismissed, or alternatively, for the proceedings to be transferred to the Supreme Court of Queensland for determination in that State pursuant to the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act1987 (Cth), s 5. Towards the end of the hearing on 20 November, counsel for the plaintiffs accepted that the claim against the first defendant was not sustainable. I thereupon made orders dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim against the first…

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 Samimi v Djamshidi

Details

AGLC: Samimi v Djamshidi [2018] NSWSC 1944
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1944
Decision Date: 14 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Samimi v Djamshidi was a case heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The parties involved were Samimi, the plaintiff, and Djamshidi, the defendant. The nature of the dispute was that Samimi sought relief based on equitable fraud, alleging that Djamshidi engaged in underhand conduct in relation to a transaction. The court was required to determine whether Samimi's claim for equitable relief was valid and whether the application should be summarily dismissed for lack of reasonable cause of action.

The primary legal issue was whether Samimi's claim for equitable fraud against Djamshidi fell within the fourth category of equitable intervention as described in the Earl of Chesterfield v Janssen. This category concerns the prevention of underhand bargains. The court needed to assess whether the equitable remedies were appropriate given that Samimi's claims involved a transaction and whether legal remedies were unavailable or inadequate. Furthermore, the court had to decide if Samimi's application disclosed any reasonable cause of action warranting further proceedings.

The court concluded that Samimi had not disclosed a reasonable cause of action for equitable relief against Djamshidi. The court held that the principles of equitable intervention only applied where remedies at law were unavailable or inadequate, and in this case, Samimi had not demonstrated such circumstances. The court further found that the claim did not satisfy the requirements for equitable fraud, particularly the need for a transaction. Consequently, the court granted the application for summary dismissal, determining that there was no reasonable cause of action in Samimi's claims.

Orders