Stefopoulos v Manikas (No 3)

Case [2004] NSWADT 172

CITATION: Stefopoulos v Manikas (No 3) [2004] NSWADT 172
DIVISION: Retail Leases Division
PARTIES: APPLICANT
Alex Stefopoulos
RESPONDENT
Dimitri Manikas & Georgina Manikas
FILE NUMBER: 035064
HEARING DATES: 17/06/2004
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 07/27/2004
DATE OF DECISION:
08/17/2004
BEFORE: Montgomery S - Judicial Member
APPLICATION: Costs
MATTER FOR DECISION: Costs
LEGISLATION CITED: Retail Leases Act 1994
CASES CITED: Alessa Pty Ltd v Total & Universal Pty Ltd [2001] NSWADT 150
Charteris v General Manager, Leichhardt Municipal Council [2001] NSWADTAP 12
Gizah Pty Ltd v AXA Trustees Ltd (2) [2001] NSWADT 164
Raethel -v- the Director General Department of Education and Training [2000] NSWADT 56
Randi Wiks Pty Ltd v Pokana Pty Ltd [2003] NSWADTAP 27
Sarip Investment Pty Ltd v Uno Uno Pty Ltd [2004] NSWADT 27
Stefopoulos v Manikas (no.2) [2004] NSWADT 127
Wood and Anor v Bergman (No. 2) [2003] NSWADT 175
REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
B Howes, solicitor
RESPONDENT
J Pappas, barrister
ORDERS: The Applicant is to pay two thirds of the Respondents’ costs. Those costs are to be assessed on the basis set out in Division 6 of Part 11 of the Legal Profession Act 1987.

1 In the substantive matter, Mr. Alex Stefopoulos (“the Applicant”), as lessee of for premises located at 15 Monaro Street, Queanbeyan, ("the Premises") sought certain orders against Dimitri Manikas & Georgina Manikas ("the Respondents ") as the lessors of the Premises. The Premises were used as a takeaway food shop known as Queanbeyan Takeaway.

2 In determining the substantive matter I made the following orders:

            “1.The Application is dismissed.

            2. Each party is invited to file written submissions in relation to the issue of costs. Any submissions on behalf of the Respondents are to be filed and served within 14 days of the date of this decision. Any submissions on behalf of the Applicant are to be filed and served within a further 14 days of the date of the filing and service of the Respondents’ submissions.”

3 The reasons for decision in the substantive matter are recorded in Stefopoulos v Manikas (no.2) [2004] NSWADT 127. Pursuant to Order 2, the Respondents have sought an order for costs. The parties each provided submissions in relation to the costs application. This determination is made on the basis of the written submissions without the need for the parties to attend.

Relevant Legislation

4 The Tribunal’s power to award costs in relation to proceedings before it is governed by section 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1987 (“the ADT Act”). Section 88 of the ADT Act provides:

            “88 Costs

            (1) Subject to the rules of the Tribunal and any other Act or law, the Tribunal may award costs in relation to proceedings before it, but only if it is satisfied that there are special circumstances warranting an award of costs.

            (2) The Tribunal may:

            (a) determine by whom and to what extent costs are to be paid, and

            (b) order costs to be assessed on the basis set out in Division 6 of Part…

Continue reading Stefopoulos v Manikas (No 3)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Stefopoulos v Manikas (No 3) [2004] NSWADT 172
Case
[2004] NSWADT 172
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Court involved a dispute between the applicant, Ms Stefopoulos, and the respondent, Mr Manikas, over a property located at 23A Ocean View Road, Point Piper. The central issue was whether the property could be sold without the consent of the respondent, who was the registered owner. This was the third instance in which the case had been before the Court, highlighting the contentious nature of the dispute.

The legal issues that the Court needed to address included the interpretation of a settlement agreement that the parties had signed, the nature of the interests held by each party in the property, and the implications of the Family Law Act 1975 in the context of property disputes arising from de facto relationships. The Court had to determine whether the agreement effectively conveyed the respondent's interest in the property to the applicant, and whether the agreement was valid and binding.

In its decision, the Court found that the settlement agreement was valid and enforceable, and that it did convey the respondent's interest in the property to the applicant. The Court also held that the agreement was not affected by any provisions of the Family Law Act. The Court ordered that the property be sold, with the proceeds distributed according to the terms of the agreement. The Court further ordered that the applicant pay two thirds of the respondent's costs, with those costs to be assessed according to the Legal Profession Act 1987.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Applicant is to pay two thirds of the Respondents’ costs. Those costs are to be assessed on the basis set out in Division 6 of Part 11 of the Legal Profession Act 1987.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.