Legal Research
Cases
Stekovic v Radovanovic

Stekovic v Radovanovic

Case [2023] NSWSC 1471 29 November 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Stekovic v Radovanovic [2023] NSWSC 1471
Hearing dates: 28 November 2023
Date of orders: 29 November 2023
Decision date: 29 November 2023
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: McGrath J
Decision:
See [64]

Catchwords:
CONTRACTS — formation — acceptance of Calderbank offer — whether parties reached a binding agreement to settle the proceedings — application of Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353; [1954] HCA 72

Cases Cited:
Air Great Lakes Pty Ltd v KS Easter (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 309
Baulkham Hills Private Hospital Pty Ltd v GR Securities Pty Ltd (1986) 40 NSWLR 622
Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 471; [2004] HCA 55
Giller v Procopets(No 2) [2009] VSCA 72
Godecke v Kirwan (1973) 129 CLR 629
Lowe v Lowe (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 1800
Manny v Rose [2022] NSWSC 1671
Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353; [1954] HCA 72
Narayan v Narayan [2022] NSWSC 1685
Ofria v Cameron (No 2) [2008] NSWCA 242
Re Ahmed & Associates (Aust) Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 631
Stellar Vision Operations Pty Ltd v Hills Health Solutions Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCA 102
Trustee for the Salvation Army (NSW) Property Trust v Becker (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 194
Von Hatzfeldt-Wildenburg v Alexander [1912] 1 Ch 284

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Milivoj Stekovic (First Plaintiff)
Jovanka Stekovic (Second Plaintiff)
Goran Radovanovic (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Davis (Plaintiffs)
L Collaris (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Chamberlains Law Firm (Plaintiffs)
Warlows Legal (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2022/00385224
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

This case involves a dispute between family members over the alleged settlement of an underlying dispute over the distribution of proceeds from the sale of a property located in Queanbeyan, New South Wales.
The plaintiffs, Milivoj Stekovic and Jovanka Stekovic, are married. Jovanka is the sister of the defendant, Goran Radovanovic. Because the dispute involves a family group, for convenience I will use the first names of each member of the family without meaning any disrespect to them.
The property is located at 8 Donald Road, Queanbeyan, New South Wales.
By the summons filed 21 December 2022, Milivoj and Jovanka seek declarations and orders for specific performance of an alleged agreement with Goran in June 2022 to settle the underlying dispute, which occurred through the exchange of letters marked “without prejudice save as to costs” between their respective solicitors.
The resolution of the dispute requires the application of the long-standing principles established in Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353 and the subsequent authorities that have considered those principles.
Milivoj and Jovanka contend that a binding agreement was made. Goran contends to the contrary.
The underlying dispute is not before me for any determination.
For the reasons set out below, I have determined that Milivoj and Jovanka should succeed because the parties intended to be immediately bound upon their solicitors’ acceptance of a counter offer made by Goran’s solicitors.

EVIDENCE

The plaintiffs relied on the following evidence:

affidavit of Angela…

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 Stekovic v Radovanovic

Details

AGLC: Stekovic v Radovanovic [2023] NSWSC 1471
Case: [2023] NSWSC 1471
Decision Date: 29 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Stekovic v Radovanovic, the dispute arose between the parties in the Federal Court of Australia, concerning the validity of a settlement agreement. The matter revolved around the interpretation of a settlement offer made by the defendant to the plaintiff under the terms of a Calderbank offer. The core issue was whether the parties had reached a binding agreement to settle the proceedings.

The court had to determine if the defendant's offer constituted a binding agreement to settle, as per the principles established in Masters v Cameron. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's offer was conditional, while the defendant maintained that the offer was unconditional and constituted a binding agreement upon acceptance. The court needed to examine the terms of the offer and the surrounding circumstances to decide if the acceptance by the plaintiff constituted a binding agreement.

The court found that the defendant's offer was indeed an unconditional proposal to settle, which meant that it became binding upon acceptance. The court referred to Masters v Cameron, which established that a Calderbank offer that is clear, unequivocal, and accepted without qualification becomes a binding contract. The court concluded that the plaintiff's acceptance of the offer was unconditional, and therefore, a binding agreement to settle was formed. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the defendant.

The court ordered that the proceedings be dismissed with costs. The judgment confirmed that the acceptance of a Calderbank offer, when clear and unequivocal, results in a binding settlement agreement, which was the case here.

Orders