Balagiannis v Balagiannis [2022] NSWCA 18

Balagiannis v Balagiannis [2022] NSWCA 18

The Deed of Assignment was unjust due to its substantial and highly disadvantageous legal and practical effects on Nicolas, who did not understand its significance and was deprived of the opportunity for independent advice, compounded by unfair tactics and the urgency created by Mary and Dimitri; the appeal was dismissed as the primary judge did not err in concluding unjustness under the Contracts Review Act.

Parties
First Appellant: Mary Balagiannis; Second Appellant: Angeliki Balagiannis (also known as Angelique Balagiannis); First Respondent: Nicolas Balagiannis; Second Respondent: Reserve Hotels Pty Limited; Third Respondent: Sydney Hotel Management Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Contracts Review Act, Unjust Contracts, Deeds of Assignment, Asset Protection, Estate Planning
Contracts Equity Contracts Review Act Unjust Contracts Deeds of Assignment Asset Protection Estate Planning

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Balagiannis

First Appellant

Angeliki Balagiannis (also known as Angelique Balagiannis)

Second Appellant

Nicolas Balagiannis

First Respondent

Reserve Hotels Pty Limited

Second Respondent

Sydney Hotel Management Pty Limited

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the primary judge erred in finding unjustness due to disadvantageous legal and practical consequences of the Deed of Assignment
  2. 2 Whether the primary judge erred in finding unjustness arising from circumstances of preparation and execution of the Deed

Ratio Decidendi

The Deed of Assignment was unjust due to its substantial and highly disadvantageous legal and practical effects on Nicolas, who did not understand its significance and was deprived of the opportunity for independent advice, compounded by unfair tactics and the urgency created by Mary and Dimitri; the appeal was dismissed as the primary judge did not err in concluding unjustness under the Contracts Review Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Appellants to pay the respondents' costs.