Vesic v Vesic

[2022] ACTSC 109

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Vesic v Vesic

Citation:

[2022] ACTSC 109

Hearing Date(s):

2–4 May 2022

DecisionDate:

19 May 2022

Before:

Crowe AJ

Decision:

See [225]–[228]

Catchwords:

EQUITY – TRUSTS – Where the plaintiff seeks a declaration that the first defendant holds legal title over property on constructive trust for the plaintiff beneficially –– fiduciary duty – where the plaintiff claims that the second defendant breached its fiduciary duty owed to the plaintiff.

CONTRACT – UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT – Where the plaintiff seeks a declaration that the transfer of property title was procured by the first defendant by unconscionable conduct – breach of contract – where the plaintiff seeks damages from the first defendant for breach of contract – misleading or deceptive conduct – where the plaintiff claims the second defendant made misleading or deceptive representations in contravention of s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law.

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – Where the plaintiff claims the second defendant was negligent in acting for both the plaintiff and the first defendant in drafting a deed of family arrangement.

Legislation Cited:

Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) Ch 11A, s 21

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2; s 236
Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) Sch 2

Limitation Act 1985 (ACT) s 11

Cases Cited:

Collinson v Paxus Australia Pty Limited (No 3) [2022] NSWSC 438

Davies v Camilleri [2000] NSWSC 904
Gang v You (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 318
Hanflex Pty Ltd v NS Hope & Associates [1990] 2 Qd R 218
Provident Capital Ltd v Papa [2013] NSWCA 36; 84 NSWLR 231
Short v Delany [1999] NSWSC 1293
Sidhu v Van Dyke [2014] HCA 19; 251 CLR 505

Walton Stores Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387

Parties:

Lillian Vesic ( Plaintiff)

John Jovan Vesic ( First Defendant)

William Love & Nicol Lawyers Pty Ltd trading as Bradley Allen Love Lawyers ( Second Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel

M Noakhtar ( Plaintiff)

A Muller ( First Defendant)

A R Zahra SC ( Second Defendant)

Solicitors

McInnes Wilson Lawyers ( Plaintiff)

Reuben George Lawyers ( First Defendant)

Sparke Helmore ( Second Defendant)

File Number(s):

SC 295 of 2020

Crowe AJ

Introduction

1. The plaintiff was born in either May 1943 or May 1945. She explained that her parents were refugees who were fleeing Eastern Europe as a consequence of the upheaval caused by World War II at the time of her birth.  The earlier date had been recorded in official documents, however, for reasons which she gave, it was the plaintiff’s belief that the later date was correct. On that basis, the plaintiff is now 77 years old.

1. The plaintiff’s parents both died when she was very young and she was adopted. She and her adoptive parents migrated to Australia when she was two or three years old. She grew up at Bathurst and, after completing her schooling, trained as a pathologist at Bathurst District Hospital. She subsequently moved to Canberra where she met and married Michael…