Tarabanko v Galachov - [2017] NSWSC 187

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Tarabanko v Galachov [2017] NSWSC 187
Hearing dates: 16 February 2017
Date of orders: 16 February 2017
Decision date: 16 February 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
(1)   Order that this appeal from the decision of the Local Court dated 12 May 2016 be allowed.
(2)   Order that the judgment of the Local Court entered in favour of Mr Victor Galachov in the amount of $21,895.40 and the order for costs made in his favour, be set aside.
(3)   Order that the proceedings be remitted to the Local Court for further management and hearing.

Costs orders:
(1)   Order that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of these proceedings.
(2)   Order that the enforcement of the costs order be stayed until the conclusion of the proceedings in the Local Court, or until further order of this Court.
(3)   Order that, pursuant to s 6(1) of the Suitors Fund Act 1951, the appellant, Mr Victor Galachov, be entitled to an indemnity certificate in respect of these proceedings.
Catchwords: APPEAL FROM LOCAL COURT – error of law – Magistrate failed to consider s 56-58 Civil Procedure Act, dictates of justice
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Local Court Act 2007
Suitors Fund Act 1951
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
Cases Cited: Aon Risk Services v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27, [2009] 239 CLR 175
Lesley Swann v Owners Strata Plan 32735 [2013] NSWSC 1635
Thaina Town (on Goulburn) Pty Limited v The City of Sydney Council [2007] NSWCA 300; [2007] 71 NSWLR 230
Texts Cited: Not Applicable
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Oleksii Tarabanko (P)
Victor Galachov (D)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Lipp (P)
In person (D)
Solicitors:
Andrew R Ford Lawyers (P)

File Number(s): 2016/175462
Publication restriction: Not Applicable
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Local Court

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Date of Decision:

12 May 2016

Before:

Stafford LCM

File Number(s):

2016/175462

EX TEMPORE Judgment

This is an appeal by Oleksii Tarabanko from a decision of the Local Court (Stafford LCM) delivered on 12 May 2016. The respondent is Mr Victor Galachov, who has appeared for himself in these proceedings. Mr Galachov was the plaintiff in proceedings in the Local Court, and Mr Tarabanko was the defendant in those proceedings. Their roles are reversed here. However, it will be convenient in this judgment to give them a description which does not confuse their roles in the Local Court and this Court. I will refer to Mr Tarabanko as the appellant and Mr Galachov as the respondent.

The Appeal

The appeal is brought under s 39(1) of the Local Court Act 2007. It seeks the following relief:

Appeal allowed.

Judgment of the court below be set aside.

The respondent's claim be dismissed.

The respondent pay the appellant's costs of the proceedings below.

According to the notice of appeal, that relief is based upon an error of law of the learned Magistrate in rejecting evidence sought to be relied upon by the appellant,…

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 Tarabanko v Galachov 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: [2017] NSWSC 187
Decision Date: 16 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tarabanko, the appellant, initiated an appeal against the decision of the respondent, Galachov, which was made by the Local Court. The original dispute pertained to the enforceability of a debt arising from a personal loan agreement. Tarabanko argued that the loan was not enforceable due to the absence of a written agreement, while Galachov contended that an oral agreement was sufficient. The Local Court found in favour of Galachov, holding that the oral agreement was binding and enforceable.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Local Court erred in law by failing to consider sections 56-58 of the Civil Procedure Act. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Local Court correctly applied the dictates of justice in its assessment of the enforceability of the oral agreement. Tarabanko's appeal focused on the argument that the Local Court should have found the oral agreement unenforceable due to the absence of a written contract. The court needed to examine whether the Local Court appropriately balanced the principles of contract law and the broader equitable considerations set out in the Civil Procedure Act.

The court found that the Local Court did indeed err in law by not fully considering sections 56-58 of the Civil Procedure Act, which pertain to the court's discretion in the interests of justice. The appellate court held that the Local Court should have balanced the strict requirements of contract law with the broader equitable principles, particularly in light of the absence of a written agreement. The appellate court further determined that the Local Court's decision did not adequately reflect the importance of written evidence in such matters, thus it did not fully exercise its discretion under the Civil Procedure Act. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Local Court for reconsideration in light of the appellate court's directions.

In light of the appellate court's decision, the court ordered that the Local Court review the enforceability of the oral agreement, taking into account the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Act. The Local Court was directed to consider whether the absence of a written agreement should preclude enforcement of the oral contract and whether the dictates of justice required a different outcome. The court further ordered that the parties bear their own costs of the appeal.

Orders