Tasoulas v Tasoulas - [2018] NSWCA 309

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Tasoulas v Tasoulas [2018] NSWCA 309
Hearing dates: 2 October 2018
Decision date: 13 December 2018
Before: Basten JA at [1];
Payne JA at [57];
White JA at [58]
Decision:
(1) Dismiss the appeal from the judgment and orders made in the Equity Division.
(2) Order that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs in this Court.
Catchwords: LAND LAW – fraud – appellant alleged his signature was forged on transfer of half-share in property to his mother – primary judge found appellant had signed transfer – whether trial judge misunderstood evidence regarding transcripts of telephone conversations between appellant and his sister – whether trial judge impermissibly refused to admit evidence – whether self-represented litigant’s experience with former solicitors provided basis for overturning decision below – whether self-represented litigant’s fatigue in cross-examination provided basis for overturning decision below
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 131
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Christopher Tasoulas (Appellant)
Vasiliki Tasoulas (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant Self-represented
C Wood / J Wyner (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Appellant Self-represented
Colquhoun & Colquhoun (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2018/170976
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court

Jurisdiction:

Equity Division

Citation:

[2018] NSWSC 861

Date of Decision:

17 May 2018

Before:

Rein J

File Number(s):

2017/258803

Judgment

BASTEN JA: In July 1991 Christopher Tasoulas and his mother, Vasiliki Tasoulas, became the registered proprietors of a property in Park Road, Hunters Hill. Pursuant to a transfer dated 18 November 1991, registered on 11 December 1992, Mr Tasoulas (the appellant) transferred his half-share in the property to his mother (the respondent). On 25 August 2017 the appellant commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court, Equity Division, seeking to have the transfer of his share to his mother set aside on the basis that his signature on the transfer was forged.
The matter was heard by Rein J in April 2018. In a judgment handed down on 17 May 2018 Rein J stated:[1]

“[26] The principal issue in this case is whether the Plaintiff has established to the requisite degree of proof that the Impugned Signature on the Transfer purporting to be his has been forged.”

The judge concluded:

[44] For these reasons, I am not persuaded that the Plaintiff did not sign the Transfer; rather, although strictly not necessary to so find, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that he did sign the Transfer, that the Defendant paid $15,000 to the Plaintiff for his half interest in the Property and that the Plaintiff has been aware at all material times since late 1991 that he did not have an interest in the Property. The Plaintiff’s case must therefore fail.”
1. Christopher Tasoulas v Vasiliki Tasoulas [2018] NSWSC 861.

On 31 May 2018 the appellant lodged a notice of appeal including six grounds. The respondent filed a notice of contention alleging that the appellant’s claim was in any event statute barred under the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), being a…

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 Tasoulas v Tasoulas 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: [2018] NSWCA 309
Decision Date: 13 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in *Tasoulas v Tasoulas* concerned a dispute over the ownership of a half-share in a property. The appellant alleged that his signature on the transfer document to his mother, the respondent, was forged. The primary judge had found that the appellant had indeed signed the transfer. The appeal to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales was brought by the appellant, who represented himself.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had misunderstood crucial evidence, specifically transcripts of telephone conversations between the appellant and his sister, and whether the primary judge had improperly refused to admit certain evidence. Further questions arose regarding whether the appellant's experience with his former solicitors or his fatigue during cross-examination at trial provided a sufficient basis to overturn the primary judge's decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the primary judge's conduct or findings. The Court considered the arguments regarding the misunderstanding of evidence and the refusal to admit evidence, concluding that these grounds were not made out. The Court also addressed the appellant's personal circumstances, including his history with solicitors and his state during cross-examination, determining that these did not vitiate the trial process or the resulting judgment. The Court applied principles of appellate review, focusing on whether demonstrable error had occurred at the trial level.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal ordered that the appeal be dismissed and that the appellant pay the respondent's costs in the Court of Appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Dismiss the appeal from the judgment and orders made in the Equity Division.

(2) Order that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs in this Court.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Tasoulas v Tasoulas [2018] NSWCA 309
Hearing dates:	2 October 2018
Decision date:	13 December 2018
Before:	Basten JA at [1]; Payne JA at [57]; White JA at [58]
Decision:	(1) Dismiss the appeal from the judgment and orders made in the Equity Division. (2) Order that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs in this Court.
Catchwords:	LAND LAW – fraud – appellant alleged his signature was forged on transfer of half-share in property to his mother – primary judge found appellant had signed transfer – whether trial judge misunderstood evidence regarding transcripts of telephone conversations between appellant and his sister – whether trial judge impermissibly refused to admit evidence – whether self-represented litigant’s experience with former solicitors provided basis for overturning decision below – whether self-represented litigant’s fatigue in cross-examination provided basis for overturning decision below
Legislation Cited:	Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 131 Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Christopher Tasoulas (Appellant) Vasiliki Tasoulas (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: Appellant Self-represented C Wood / J Wyner (Respondent) Solicitors: Appellant Self-represented Colquhoun & Colquhoun (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2018/170976
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: Supreme Court Jurisdiction: Equity Division Citation: [2018] NSWSC 861 Date of Decision: 17 May 2018 Before: Rein J File Number(s): 2017/258803