Legal Research
Cases
Talacko v Talacko

Talacko v Talacko

Case [2015] VSC 287 7 August 2015

Unconscionable Conduct

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2009 7819

JAN TALACKO (As executor of the Estate of Helena Marie Talacko) AND ORS (According to the schedule attached)	Plaintiffs
v
JAN EMIL TALACKO AND ORS (According to the schedule attached)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	McDONALD J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 25, 26, 27 March 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 August 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Talacko v Talacko
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 287

---

CONSIPRACY TO INJURE —defendants did not have sole or dominant purpose of harming the plaintiffs — defendants’ primary motivation was self-interest to preserve ownership of properties which had been restituted to the first defendant within first defendant’s immediate family

UNLAWFUL MEANS CONSPIRACY —transfer of assets from first defendant to second and third defendants constituted an equitable fraud — first to fourth defendants were parties to an agreement to injure the plaintiffs — any loss as a result of agreement to transfer properties from first defendant to second and third defendants contingent upon outcome of ongoing legal proceedings in Czech Republic.

INDUCING BREACH OF CONTRACT — second to fourth defendants provided advice and encouragement to the first defendant prior to his breach of terms of settlement — conduct not actionable as inducing breach of contract.

TRUSTS — Barnes v Addy (1874) 9 Ch App 244 — No express or implied trust created by terms of settlement.

Section 172 Property Law Act 1958 (Vic) — transfer of property from first to fourth defendant shortly after commencement of legal proceedings against first defendant — transfer not for valuable consideration — transfer voidable; transfer of property from fifth defendant to sixth defendant — none of plaintiffs’ claims against fifth defendant successful — plaintiffs not persons prejudiced by transfer.

Property Law Act 1958 (Vic) s 172; Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 s 42E; Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) s 56; Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) rr 2.04(1), 7.02(1), 7.04, 9.09(2), 16.03, 66.10(3), 77.06; Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) s 9; Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) s 15; Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 58(3).

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the First Plaintiff

For the Second to Fifth Plaintiffs

In person

Mr S Howells
with Dr M Sharpe

Tolhurst, Druce & Emmerson

For the First, Second and Third Defendants

For the Fourth Defendant

For the Fifth and Sixth Defendants

Seventh Defendant

No appearance

Mr L Glick QC
with Mr J Masters

Mr P Crutchfield QC
with Ms F Bentley

No appearance

Strongman & Crouch

SBA Lawyers

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS................................................................................................. 1

(i)......... Conspiracy to injure.......................................................................................... 1
(ii)........ Unlawful means conspiracy............................................................................. 1
(iii)...... Barnes v Addy claims.......................................................................................... 1
(iv)....... Inducing breach of contract.............................................................................. 2
(v)........ Section 172 Property Law Act: 312 Glenferrie Road, Malvern..................... 2
(vi)....... Section 172 Property Law Act: 23 Ethel Street, Malvern............................... 2

Introduction............................................................................................................................ 2

The first defendant’s breach of the 2001 terms…

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 Talacko v Talacko

Details

AGLC: Talacko v Talacko [2015] VSC 287
Case: [2015] VSC 287
Decision Date: 7 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Talacko v Talacko involved a dispute between family members concerning the transfer of assets. The plaintiffs sought to establish claims for conspiracy to injure, unlawful means conspiracy, inducing breach of contract, and breaches of trust. The defendants contested these claims, arguing that any transfer of assets was motivated by self-interest and not with the intent to harm the plaintiffs. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues in the case were whether the defendants had conspired to injure the plaintiffs and whether the transfer of assets constituted an equitable fraud. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the second to fourth defendants had induced the first defendant to breach the terms of a settlement and if an express or implied trust was created by the terms of the settlement. The court also had to consider the applicability of various statutory provisions, including Section 172 of the Property Law Act 1958 (Vic), which addresses transfers of property shortly after legal proceedings commence.

The court found that the defendants did not have the sole or dominant purpose of harming the plaintiffs; their primary motivation was self-interest to preserve ownership of properties. The transfer of assets from the first defendant to the second and third defendants constituted an equitable fraud, as it was contingent upon the outcome of legal proceedings in the Czech Republic. The court held that while the first to fourth defendants were parties to an agreement to injure the plaintiffs, the second to fourth defendants' conduct in providing advice and encouragement to the first defendant prior to his breach of the settlement terms was not actionable as inducing breach of contract. Furthermore, no express or implied trust was created by the terms of the settlement. The transfer of property from the first to the fourth defendant was voidable under Section 172 of the Property Law Act 1958 (Vic), but the plaintiffs were not prejudiced by the transfer of property from the fifth to the sixth defendant.

The court dismissed all claims against the first to fourth defendants, except for the equitable fraud claim. The final orders included a declaration that the transfer of property from the first to the fourth defendant was voidable and that the first to fourth defendants conspired to injure the plaintiffs by engaging in an unlawful means conspiracy. The court also ordered the first to fourth defendants to account for any benefits obtained from the voidable transfer.

Orders