Structum Pty Ltd v Basilios Mihalopoulos and CWCN Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2019] NSWDC 119
•09 April 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Structum Pty Ltd v Basilios Mihalopoulos and CWCN Pty Ltd [2019] NSWDC 119
[2019] NSWDC 119
09 April 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Structum Pty Ltd sued Basilios Mihalopoulos and CWCN Pty Ltd in the District Court of New South Wales. Structum sought to recover $314,980.05 under a Deed Poll, alleging that Mihalopoulos signed the document while intoxicated, rendering him unable to comprehend its contents. Additionally, Structum claimed that the transaction was not at arm's length and involved unconscionable conduct by CWCN Pty Ltd. The court needed to determine whether the Deed Poll was valid given Mihalopoulos's incapacity due to intoxication, if there was any predatory conduct by CWCN Pty Ltd, and whether the transaction was unconscionable or at arm's length.
The court examined the evidence regarding Mihalopoulos's state of intoxication and his ability to read and comprehend the Deed Poll. It considered the principles of non-est factum, which allows a party to avoid a contract if they were unaware of its contents due to fraud or a mistake. The court also assessed whether CWCN Pty Ltd engaged in predatory conduct and if the transaction was unconscionable. The court had to decide if it had jurisdiction to hear the matter under the District Court Act 1973 (NSW) and if the transaction was genuinely commercial or rather a result of exploitation.
The court found that Mihalopoulos was heavily intoxicated when he signed the Deed Poll, rendering him incapable of understanding its terms. It concluded that the non-est factum principle applied, and thus, the Deed Poll was not binding. Additionally, the court held that CWCN Pty Ltd engaged in predatory conduct and that the transaction was not at arm's length. The court also found the transaction unconscionable due to the disparity in bargaining power. The District Court had jurisdiction over the matter under the District Court Act 1973 (NSW).
The court ordered judgment for Structum Pty Ltd against Mihalopoulos and CWCN Pty Ltd jointly and severally for $314,980.05, plus interest of $26,518.73. The defendants were also ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.
The court examined the evidence regarding Mihalopoulos's state of intoxication and his ability to read and comprehend the Deed Poll. It considered the principles of non-est factum, which allows a party to avoid a contract if they were unaware of its contents due to fraud or a mistake. The court also assessed whether CWCN Pty Ltd engaged in predatory conduct and if the transaction was unconscionable. The court had to decide if it had jurisdiction to hear the matter under the District Court Act 1973 (NSW) and if the transaction was genuinely commercial or rather a result of exploitation.
The court found that Mihalopoulos was heavily intoxicated when he signed the Deed Poll, rendering him incapable of understanding its terms. It concluded that the non-est factum principle applied, and thus, the Deed Poll was not binding. Additionally, the court held that CWCN Pty Ltd engaged in predatory conduct and that the transaction was not at arm's length. The court also found the transaction unconscionable due to the disparity in bargaining power. The District Court had jurisdiction over the matter under the District Court Act 1973 (NSW).
The court ordered judgment for Structum Pty Ltd against Mihalopoulos and CWCN Pty Ltd jointly and severally for $314,980.05, plus interest of $26,518.73. The defendants were also ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Contract Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Contract Formation
-
Unconscionable Conduct
-
Judicial Review
-
District Court commercial jurisdiction
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Man Hay Lau v Anglican Community Services [2025] NSWDC 193
Cases Citing This Decision
6
Man Hay Lau v Anglican Community Services
[2025] NSWDC 193
Artkal Trading Pty Limited v Next Constructions Pty Ltd
[2021] NSWDC 819
Cases Cited
18
Statutory Material Cited
5
R v Metal Trades Employers Association; Ex parte
[1949] HCA 17
Aldous v State of New South Wales
[2018] NSWCA 261
Blomley v Ryan
[1956] HCA 81