Vrantsidis v Milekovic - [2025] VSC 255

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
TRUSTS, EQUITY AND PROBATE LIST

S ECI 2021 04654

IN THE MATTER of the estate of STAVROS VRANTSIDIS, deceased

BETWEEN:

FREDA VRANTSIDIS (also known as FRIDERIKI VRANTSIDIS)	Plaintiff
v
CHRISOULA MILEKOVIC (who is sued in her capacity as Executor and Trustee of the Estate of STAVROS VRANTSIDIS, deceased)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Daly AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4 July, 1 August 2024, further written submissions received on 1 August, 6 September, and 23 September 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 May 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Vrantsidis v Milekovic
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 255

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Overarching obligations — Application by the defendant under s 29 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) regarding the conduct of the plaintiff and her solicitor — Alleged breach of the overarching obligation not to bring a claim without a proper basis and the overarching obligation not to mislead or deceive — Whether the plaintiff and her solicitor breached their overarching obligations to the Court by not exhibiting certain documents in the plaintiff’s affidavit filed in support of the originating motion, and by making allegedly false statements — Dura (Australia) Constructions Pty Ltd v Hue Boutique Living Pty Ltd (No 5) (2014) 48 VR 1 referred to — Whether the plaintiff was justified in bringing her claims in this proceedings — Whether leave was required to bring the proceeding by way of originating motion pursuant to r 45.05(2)(b) of the Supreme Court General Civil Procedure Rules 2015 (Vic) — Plaintiff had reasonable grievances and was justified in bringing this proceeding, and there was no breach of any overarching obligations —Application dismissed.

ADMINISTRATION AND PROBATE — Application by beneficiary for removal of the executor of their late father’s estate — Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic), s 34 — Brito-Babapulle v Brito-Babapulle [2024] VSC 281 referred to — Significant delays in the administration of the estate primarily due to ongoing dispute between the plaintiff and defendant relating to the disposition of real property forming part of the estate — Where the defendant has not complied with terms of a settlement deed executed by the parties and has failed to finalise the estate — Defendant is disqualified from continuing to act as executor where she has failed to fulfil her executorial duties in a timely and responsible manner — Application granted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Ms B Ridgeway of counsel	Elvin Lawyers
For the Defendant	In person
For Other Party	Mr O Wolahan of counsel	K & L Gates

HER HONOUR:

Introduction and background

These reasons concern a proceeding originally brought in December 2021 seeking the removal of the defendant, Ms Chrisoula Milekovic, as the executor of the estate of the late Stavros Vrantsidis (‘estate’), who died in late 2019. The defendant is a daughter of the deceased, and the plaintiff, Ms Freda Vrantsidis, is the defendant’s sister, and a co-beneficiary of the…

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 Vrantsidis v Milekovic 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: [2025] VSC 255
Decision Date: 14 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Vrantsidis v Milekovic, the court was presented with two distinct issues. Firstly, the defendant challenged the conduct of the plaintiff and her solicitor under the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic), alleging breaches of the overarching obligations, specifically not to bring a claim without a proper basis and not to mislead or deceive. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff and her solicitor failed to disclose certain documents in the plaintiff’s affidavit filed in support of the originating motion and made allegedly false statements. Secondly, the plaintiff sought the removal of the defendant as the executor of their late father’s estate under the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic), alleging significant delays and disputes regarding the disposition of real property.

The court examined whether the plaintiff was justified in bringing her claims and whether there had been any breaches of overarching obligations. In relation to the first issue, the court found that the plaintiff had reasonable grievances and was justified in bringing the proceeding, and there was no breach of any overarching obligations. The court dismissed the application regarding the conduct of the plaintiff and her solicitor. On the second issue, the court found that the defendant had not complied with the terms of a settlement deed and had failed to finalise the estate. The significant delays in the administration of the estate were primarily due to the ongoing dispute between the parties. As the defendant had failed to fulfil her executorial duties in a timely and responsible manner, the court granted the application for her removal as executor.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the application regarding the conduct of the plaintiff and her solicitor under the Civil Procedure Act. The application for the removal of the defendant as executor was granted, and the defendant was disqualified from continuing to act as executor.

Orders