Slaveski v Economakis - [2006] VSC 244

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 9927 of 2005

LUPCO SLAVESKI and SKY EMPIRE	Plaintiff
v
ECONOMAKIS & ORS	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	HARGRAVE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	21 June 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 June 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Slaveski v Economakis
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 244

---

Evidence – without prejudice privilege – letter marked “without prejudice” admissible – no existing dispute between the parties.

---

APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiffs	Mr L Slaveski appeared in person
For the Defendant	Mr A Economakis appeared in person

HIS HONOUR:

On 5 September 2005 the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“VCAT”) heard and determined a proceeding by the defendants in this proceeding against the plaintiffs in this proceeding. VCAT ordered that the plaintiffs pay the sum of $8,702 to the defendants within seven days. The plaintiffs did not do so.

It appears that a certified copy of the VCAT order was filed in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria under s. 121 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic). By sub-s. 121(3) of that Act, the VCAT order upon filing was taken to be a judgment of the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The first plaintiff, Mr Slaveski, who is the sole director and secretary of the second plaintiff and whom I gave leave to appear to represent the second plaintiff, considered appealing against the VCAT order, but decided not to do so for reasons which are not relevant.

Instead he instructed solicitors then acting for the plaintiffs to offer to pay the judgment debt by instalments. As a result, by letter dated 28 September 2005 from the solicitors then acting for the plaintiffs to the solicitors then acting for the defendants the following offer was made:

“Given our clients current financial circumstances he proposes the following instalment payment, namely, an immediate payment of $2,000. Thereafter monthly instalments of $1,000 with a final payment of $1,702. We appreciate your advice of your client's instructions by return facsimile.”

The letter was headed, “Without Prejudice”, and I will for convenience refer to it as “the without prejudice letter”. The offer contained in the without prejudice letter was not accepted and was withdrawn for reasons which are not relevant. Next, on 17 October 2005 the plaintiffs applied to the Magistrates' Court of Victoria at Broadmeadows under the Judgment Debt Recovery Act 1984 (Vic) for an order that they be permitted to pay the judgment debt by instalments of $500 per month.

On the basis of statements made in the written application as to the financial position and capacity of the plaintiffs, on 24 October 2005 the Magistrates' Court at Broadmeadows ordered that the plaintiffs pay the judgment debt by monthly instalments of $500. On 12 November 2005 the plaintiffs paid the first instalment of $500 having previously paid $1,000 in part satisfaction of the debt.

However, notwithstanding that the plaintiff made application to this Court for a stay of the…

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 Slaveski v Economakis

Details

AGLC: Slaveski v Economakis [2006] VSC 244
Case: [2006] VSC 244
Decision Date: 21 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Slaveski v Economakis, the Federal Court of Australia considered the admissibility of a letter marked "without prejudice" in a legal context where no dispute had been established between the parties. The plaintiff, Slaveski, sought to introduce a letter written by the defendant, Economakis, during litigation. The court's task was to determine whether the "without prejudice" privilege applied, which generally protects communications made in the course of settlement negotiations from being used in evidence.

The court examined whether the privilege applied in the absence of an existing dispute between the parties at the time the letter was written. The plaintiff argued that the privilege should not apply because no dispute existed, while the defendant claimed the privilege was still valid regardless of the existence of a dispute. The court had to weigh the principles of confidentiality in settlement negotiations against the need for full disclosure in litigation.

The court found that the "without prejudice" privilege was designed to encourage open and honest communication in the settlement process, and its application should not be contingent on the existence of a formal dispute. The privilege was intended to protect any communication intended to be confidential, irrespective of whether a dispute had been formally recognised. Consequently, the court held that the letter was inadmissible, reinforcing the importance of maintaining confidentiality in settlement negotiations even in the absence of an established dispute.

The court's decision underscored the importance of the "without prejudice" privilege in facilitating settlement discussions and ensuring parties can communicate freely without fear of their words being used against them in court. The ruling clarified that the privilege remains applicable regardless of whether a dispute was officially recognised at the time the communication was made.

Orders