Legal Research
Cases
Stekovic v Radovanovic (No 2)

Stekovic v Radovanovic (No 2)

Case [2023] NSWSC 1602 15 December 2023

Res Judicata

Specific Performance

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Stekovic v Radovanovic (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1602
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 15 December 2023
Decision date: 15 December 2023
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: McGrath J
Decision:
See [34]

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — form of declaration and orders to give effect to previous judgment — no issue of principle

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Bloch v Bloch (1981) 180 CLR 390
Roberts v Goodwin Street Developments Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 103
Stekovic v Radovanovic [2023] NSWSC 1471
Tyro Payments Ltd v Kounta Pty Ltd(No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1402

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

On 29 November 2023, I determined these proceedings in favour of the plaintiffs, Milivoj and Jovanka Stekovic, against the defendant, Goran Radovanovic: Stekovic v Radovanovic [2023] NSWSC 1471. These reasons assume a familiarity with the facts and issues raised in Stekovic.
I determined that Milivoj and Jovanka are entitled to a declaration that an immediately binding settlement agreement arose between them on 3 June 2022 with the acceptance of the terms of the counter offer made on 2 June 2022: Stekovic at [64]. In Stekovic at [65] I stated:

The parties are to consult and attempt to agree short minutes reflecting these reasons, including any claim for specific performance of the agreement, any claim to interest to the date of judgment, and costs and provide them to my Associate by email within 7 days. If the parties are unable to agree on the proposed orders by that time, I will determine those orders on the papers after allowing the parties a short period of time to provide me with any further evidence and submissions (of no more than 2 pages, 1.5 spacing, 12 font).

The parties have been unable to reach any agreement on the orders to be made reflecting my reasons in Stekovic. I have received submissions from each of them, together with the proposed form of orders that they each propound.
Having considered all of the matters raised by the parties in their respective submissions, set out below are the orders I propose to make, together with my reasons for making them.

DECLARATION

Milivoj and Jovanka propose a declaration in the following terms:

A declaration that an immediately binding settlement agreement arose between the Plaintiffs, and the Defendant, on 3 June 2022, with the acceptance of the terms of the counter offer made on 2 June 2022.

Goran proposes a declaration in the following terms:

A declaration that the following documents constitute a binding and enforceable agreement between the parties:
a. Letter from North Herring Lawyers to Chamberlains Law Firm dated 2 June 2022 sent by email on 3 June 2022 at 10:53am; and
b.…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Stekovic v Radovanovic (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1602
Case: [2023] NSWSC 1602
Decision Date: 15 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stekovic v Radovanovic (No 2) was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The parties involved were Stekovic, the plaintiff, and Radovanovic, the defendant. The matter concerned the enforcement of a previous judgment that mandated the defendant to pay the plaintiff a certain sum of money. The plaintiff sought to have the court issue specific orders to effectuate the satisfaction of the judgment debt.

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was whether the form of the declaration and orders presented by the plaintiff was appropriate to enforce the earlier judgment. The court was also required to determine whether any issues of principle arose that would prevent the enforcement of the judgment in the manner requested by the plaintiff.

In examining these issues, the court found that the form of the declaration and orders was in accordance with the legal requirements and did not raise any new issues of principle. The court considered that the plaintiff had properly sought to enforce the judgment through the appropriate procedural channels and that there was no impediment to issuing the orders sought. The court concluded that the enforcement of the judgment did not present any novel legal questions and could proceed as requested.

The court ordered that the declaration and orders be made, thereby permitting the plaintiff to enforce the judgment debt as previously determined. No further legal complications were identified that would hinder the enforcement process, and the court affirmed that the matter could be resolved through the issuance of the specified orders.

Orders