Xirakis v Xirakis

[2025] ACTSC 376

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Xirakis v Xirakis

Citation: 

[2025] ACTSC 376

Hearing Date: 

On the papers

Decision Date: 

21 August 2025

Reasons Date:

26 August 2025

Before:

Muller AJ

Decision: 

See [11]

Catchwords: 

CIVIL PROCEDURE – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where plaintiff under legal disability – settlement of proceedings – court approval of settlement required – whether settlement in best interests – settlement approved

Legislation Cited: 

Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 282

Cases Cited: 

Elliott v Diener (1978) 21 ACTR 21

Ryan v Larkham [2022] ACTSC 151

Veal (by his next friend Watson) v Hehir [2018] ACTSC 330

Parties: 

Liana Xirakis (by her litigation guardian George Xirakis) ( Plaintiff)

Nicholas Xirakis ( First Defendant)

Peter Litsakos as trustee for the Litsakos Family Trust (Second Defendant)

Meyer Vandenberg Pty Ltd (Third Defendant)

Representation:

Solicitors

Colquhoun Murphy ( Plaintiff)

Kamy Saeedi Law (First Defendant)

Self-represented ( Second Defendant)

Wotton Kearney (Third Defendant)

File Number:

SC 83 of 2025

MULLER AJ: 

Introduction

1․The plaintiff applies to the Court for approval of a settlement she has reached with the defendants.

2․The proceedings relate to the plaintiff's home at Watson in the ACT that was, prior to March 2018, unencumbered. She alleges that, unknown to her, and without her authority, the defendants were involved in the procuring of some financial accommodation that was secured over her property, culminating in the lender pursuing her for recovery of unpaid loan monies. The plaintiff alleges that she suffered loss and damage as a result.

3․The plaintiff is currently 87 years old and was diagnosed with dementia in December 2019. She is thus a person under a legal disability and is represented in the proceedings by her son, George Xirakis, who is her litigation guardian.

4․The plaintiff claims damages:

(a)Against the first defendant, for breach of fiduciary duty;

(b)Against the second defendant, for unconscionable conduct in the circumstances of the provision of the financial accommodation; and

(c)Against the third defendant, for breach of its professional services retainer.

5․The Court was asked to approve a settlement agreement reached between the parties whereby the defendants are to pay to the plaintiff the sum of [redacted]. On 21 August 2025, I made orders approving the settlement. My reasons for making those orders now follow.

Relevant principles

6․Rule 282 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) provides:

282Person with legal disability—approval of settlement etc

(1)In a proceeding (or proposed proceeding) in which there is a claim for an amount (including an amount of damages) by or on behalf of a person with a legal disability, a settlement or compromise may only be entered into, and an amount paid into court may only be accepted, with the court’s approval.

(2)The application for the court’s approval must be made by originating application, unless the application is made in a proceeding that has already been started.

Note 1Div 2.2.3 (Originating applications) contains provisions about the content of originating applications, the filing and service of originating applications, etc.

Note…