RECEIVER – Interlocutory order appointing receivers to sell real property assets subject of deed of settlement – Principles regarding appointment of receivers – Breakdown in parties’ relationship and ongoing breaches of deed – Properties at risk of mortgagee sale – Where primary judge recognised the need for caution and considered interests of all parties – No alternative and less drastic order available – Application for leave to appeal refused.
Constantinos Siamidis (‘Con’) passed away on 24 June 2021. He was survived by his wife Kasiani Siamidis, and their three children Chris Siamidis, Steve Siamidis, and Mary Schilling.[1] The Siamidis family, including Con’s estate,[2] have interests in a large and valuable property portfolio, through various superannuation funds, trusts, and partnerships.
[1]For clarity, and without meaning any disrespect, family members are referred to in this judgment by their given names.
[2]Probate of Con’s will was granted to Chris on 14 April 2022.
By mid-2024, the surviving members of the family were involved in Supreme Court litigation about the properties, with Chris and Kasiani on one side of the dispute, and Steve and Mary on the other. A dispute about the ownership of certain vehicles was the subject of a separate County Court proceeding.
On 6 August 2024, the parties entered into a settlement deed (‘Deed’) that resolved these disputes. Among other things, the Deed provided for the sale of 13 properties, the discharge of liabilities, and distribution of the proceeds of the sales. Relevantly, it provided a process for the sale of the following eight properties:
(a)York Street;
(b)Lot 1 Kings Way;
(c)Lot 2 Kings Way;
(d)635–637 Sydney Road;
(e)479 Lygon Street;
(f)481 Lygon Street;
(g)483 Lygon Street; and
(h)St Georges Road,
(together, the ‘Properties’).
Within a few months, the parties were again in dispute about the performance of the Deed. On 16 December 2024, Chris and Kasiani commenced another Supreme Court proceeding, alleging various breaches by Steve and Mary of their obligations under the Deed, and seeking specific performance of the Deed and other relief. On 17 December 2024, Chris and Kasiani applied for interlocutory relief in the form of mandatory injunctions to compel performance by Steve and Mary of their obligations under the Deed,…
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 Siamidis v Siamidis
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Siamidis v Siamidis [2025] VSCA 230
Case
[2025] VSCA 230
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Siamidis v Siamidis involved the parties, Siamidis, who were embroiled in a dispute concerning the enforcement of a settlement deed. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court. The primary issue before the court was whether the appointment of receivers to sell certain real property assets, which were the subject of the settlement deed, was justified under the circumstances.
The legal issues that the court had to address included whether there had been a breakdown in the parties' relationship and ongoing breaches of the settlement deed, and whether the properties were at risk of mortgagee sale. The court also had to consider the principles regarding the appointment of receivers, including the need for caution and the consideration of the interests of all parties. The court examined whether there were any alternative and less drastic orders available. After careful consideration, the court found that the primary judge had recognised the need for caution and had considered the interests of all parties. The court was satisfied that there was no alternative and less drastic order available.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The court referred to several cases in its reasoning, including National Australia Bank Limited v Bond Brewing Holdings Limited, Yunghanns v Candoora No 19 Pty Ltd (No 2), and Martyniuk v King. Ultimately, the court upheld the appointment of receivers to sell the real property assets, subject to the deed of settlement. No further orders were made.