Legal Research
Cases
Stojanovski v Stojanovski

Stojanovski v Stojanovski

Link copied

Case Copied 21 December 2023 60 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Stojanovski v Stojanovski [2023] NSWSC 1645
Hearing dates: 24 October 2023
Date of orders: 21 December 2023
Decision date: 21 December 2023
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: McGrath J
Decision:
See [126]

Catchwords:
CORPORATIONS — trustees and receivers — where trustees and receivers seek to be fully indemnified for the reasonable costs and expenses incurred in, and to receive remuneration in respect of, the performance of their duties — where fourth defendant raises issue of proportionality — HELD —remuneration and disbursements sought are appropriate

Legislation Cited:
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
In the matter of Cannuli Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq) (Court-appointed receiver acting) [2017] NSWSC 1562
In the matter of Gondon Five Pty Ltd and Cui Family Asset Management Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 469
In the matter of Idylic Solutions Pty Ltd as trustee for Super Save Superannuation Fund and others [2016] NSWSC 1292
In the matter of Say Enterprises Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 396
Re Octavia Administration Pty Ltd (in liq) [2020] NSWSC 927
Re Solfire Pty Ltd (No 2) [1998] QSC 92
Sanderson as Liquidator of Sakr Nominees Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Sakr (2017) 93 NSWLR 459; [2017] NSWCA 38
Stojanovski v Stojanovski [2018] NSWSC 1967
Stojanovski v Stojanovski [2019] NSWSC 1713
Stojanovski v Stojanovski [2022] NSWSC 508
Stojanovski v Stojanovski (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 558
Stojanovski v Stojanovski (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 1540
Stojanovski v Stojanovski(No 4) [2021] NSWSC 800
Templeton v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2015] FCAFC 137
Venetian Nominees Pty Ltd & Ors v Mark Anthony Conlan & Ors [1998] WASCA 273

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Angelina Stojanovski (Fourth Defendant)
Fabian Kane Micheletto (Fifth Defendant)
Michael Carrafa (Sixth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Paterson (Fourth Defendant)
E Holmes (Fifth and Sixth Defendants)
Solicitors:
Maatouks Law Group (Fourth Defendant)
Polczynski Robinson (Fifth and Sixth Defendants)

File Number(s): 2012/00089349
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

These proceedings arise out of a long, complex and hard-fought history of litigation concerning the financial and legal affairs of the Stojanovski family, including the ownership of the following three properties (together, Properties):

169 Morts Road, Mortdale, NSW 2223 (Morts Road);

17 Kemp Street, Mortdale, NSW 2223 (Kemp Street); and

41 Breakwell Street, Mortdale, NSW 223 (Breakwell Street).

Earlier judgments in this court involving the parties include:

Stojanovski v Stojanovski [2018] NSWSC 1967 (17 December 2018);

Stojanovski v Stojanovski [2019] NSWSC 1713 (4 December 2019);

Stojanovski v Stojanovski (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 558 (13 May 2020);

Stojanovski v Stojanovski (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 1540 (2 November 2020);

Stojanovski v Stojanovski(No 4) [2021] NSWSC 800 (1 July 2021); and

Stojanovski v Stojanovski [2022] NSWSC 508 (28 April 2022).

The plaintiff, Steven Stojanovski, is the brother of Robert Stojanovski. The fourth defendant, Angelina Stojanovski, is the wife of Robert. Due to the overlap in surname, for convenience I will refer to each of Steven, Robert and Angelina by their first…

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 Stojanovski v Stojanovski 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: [2023] NSWSC 1645
Decision Date: 21 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stojanovski v Stojanovski involved the trustees and receivers seeking to be indemnified for the reasonable costs and expenses they incurred in the performance of their duties. They also sought remuneration for their work. The fourth defendant raised the issue of proportionality, arguing that the trustees and receivers were seeking more than they were entitled to. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the trustees and receivers were entitled to be fully indemnified for the costs and expenses they incurred and whether the remuneration they sought was appropriate.

The court held that the trustees and receivers were entitled to be fully indemnified for the reasonable costs and expenses they incurred in the performance of their duties. The court found that the trustees and receivers had acted reasonably and within the scope of their duties. The court also found that the remuneration sought was appropriate, and the trustees and receivers were entitled to receive it. The court rejected the argument that the reimbursement sought was disproportionate.

The court found that the fourth defendant's argument was without merit. The court held that the trustees and receivers were entitled to be fully indemnified for the reasonable costs and expenses they incurred in the performance of their duties. The court also held that the remuneration sought was appropriate and that the trustees and receivers were entitled to receive it. The court rejected the argument that the reimbursement sought was disproportionate. The court made an order that the trustees and receivers be fully indemnified for the reasonable costs and expenses they incurred in the performance of their duties and that they receive remuneration for their work.

Orders