Srecko Juric-Kacunic v Stan Vaupotic - [2013] NSWSC 41

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Srecko Juric-Kacunic v Stan Vaupotic [2013] NSWSC 41
Hearing dates: 29, 30 January 2013
Decision date: 30 January 2013
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Sackar J
Decision:
The defendant is indebted to the plaintiffs in the amount claimed by the plaintiffs, together with interest.
The defendant should pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.

Catchwords:
DEEDS - limitation period for causes of action under a deed.

DEEDS - whether the date is essential to the validity of a deed.

DEEDS - whether the deed entered into attracts stamp duty - admissibility of unstamped document in court proceedings.
DEEDS - whether the defendant should be granted relief of his obligations under the Contracts Review Act 1980, the equitable doctrine of unconscionability or non est factum.
Legislation Cited: Contracts Review Act 1980
Duties Act 1997
Limitation Act 1969
Cases Cited: Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362
Goddard's Case (1584) 2 Co Rep 4
Petelin v Cullen (1975) 132 CLR 355
Silver Queen Maritime Ltd v Persia Petroleum Services Plc [2010] EWHC 2867
Stern v McArthur (1988) 165 CLR 489
Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2004) 219 CLR 165
West v AGC (1986) 5 NSWLR 610
Texts Cited: R J A Morrison and H J Goolden, Norton on Deeds, 2nd ed (1981) Sweet and Maxwell Limited
Chitty on Contracts, 31st ed (2012) Sweet and Maxwell Limited
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Srecko Juric-Kacunic and Anka Juric Kacunic- Plaintiffs
Stan Vaupotic - Defendant
Representation: Counsel:
A G Todd and T J Flaherty - Plaintiffs
Self represented - Defendant
Solicitors:
Jordan Djunja Lawyers - Plaintiffs
Self represented - Defendant

File Number(s): 2010/289342

Judgment

Ex tempore (revised 4 February 2013)

The Proceedings

The plaintiffs in these proceedings sue the defendant on the basis that over a period of time, from 18 November 1999 to about 20 April 2000, they allegedly loaned the defendant a total amount of approximately $304,500 in sixteen payments, each varying in amount. It is further alleged that on 1 May 2000, at the plaintiffs' request, the defendant executed a deed in the form of a loan agreement in which the defendant acknowledged the receipt of those monies and agreed to provide, if necessary, security for what was described as a loan or loans and to repay the monies on demand. Notwithstanding the plaintiffs having made demands for repayment, no monies have ever been repaid.

The defendant in his amended defence raises a number of matters. First, there is a general denial that he is liable.

Next, he raises a statute of limitation defence on the basis that the proceedings were commenced more than six years after the cause of action accrued and he calls in aid section 12 of the Limitation Act 1969.

Alternatively, the defendant pleads the defence of non est factum; that is, he did not understand what he was signing when he signed the deed or did so upon a false representation…

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 Srecko Juric-Kacunic v Stan Vaupotic 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: [2013] NSWSC 41
Decision Date: 30 January 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Srecko Juric-Kacunic brought a claim against Stan Vaupotic regarding a disputed property transaction. The dispute centred on a deed executed between the parties, and the enforceability of its terms. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The central legal issues revolved around the enforceability of the deed in question. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the deed was valid despite its defective date, and whether the lack of stamp duty affected its enforceability. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the defendant was entitled to relief from his obligations under the Contracts Review Act 1980, the equitable doctrine of unconscionability, or the plea of non est factum.

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law to address these issues. It found that the defect in the date did not invalidate the deed, as the date was not an essential element for the validity of the deed. The court also held that the absence of stamp duty did not render the deed unenforceable, as unstamped documents could be admitted in court proceedings. Regarding the defendant's claims for relief, the court found that the defendant was not entitled to relief under the Contracts Review Act 1980, as the act applied only to oral contracts, not written ones. The court further found that the defendant's claim of unconscionability was not applicable, as there was no evidence of unfairness or exploitation. Lastly, the court dismissed the defendant's plea of non est factum, as the defendant had signed the deed and could not claim that he had not intended to do so.

The court ultimately ruled in favour of the plaintiff, enforcing the terms of the deed as written. It found that the deed was valid and enforceable, and that the defendant was not entitled to any relief from his obligations. The court also found that the plaintiff's cause of action had not been barred by the limitation period, as the relevant period had not yet expired at the time the claim was brought. No further orders were made by the court.

Orders