Edward Ted Lakis and Anor v Michael Victor Lardis and Anor [2017] NSWSC 561

Edward Ted Lakis and Anor v Michael Victor Lardis and Anor [2017] NSWSC 561

The Plaintiffs were not entitled to indemnity costs against the Second Defendant because, despite the Second Defendant's evidence being rejected as untruthful, there was insufficient basis to find deliberate misconduct or perjury; party and party costs are appropriate. The 49% transfer of the Dolls Point Property was void under s 37A of the Conveyancing Act 1919. A stay of orders was appropriate for 28 days to permit appeal, conditioned on non-disposal of the property interest.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Edward Ted Lakis; Second Plaintiff: Amazon Pest Control Pty Ltd (In Liq) ACN 092 833 531; First Defendant: Michael Victor Lardis; Second Defendant: Athena Lardis
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings (expedition List) / Post Judgment Costs and Ancillary Orders
Outcome
Orders made as declared and outlined; costs awarded on party-party basis; stay granted for 28 days.
Legal Topics
Costs, Stay of Orders, Property Transfer Voidance, Trustee in Bankruptcy Rights
Equity Bankruptcy Property Law Costs Stay of Orders Property Transfer Voidance Trustee in Bankruptcy Rights

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Ted Lakis

First Plaintiff

Amazon Pest Control Pty Ltd (In Liq) ACN 092 833 531

Second Plaintiff

Michael Victor Lardis

First Defendant

Athena Lardis

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceedings (expedition List) / Post Judgment Costs and Ancillary Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis against the Second Defendant
  2. 2 Whether the 49% transfer of Dolls Point Property is void under s 37A of the Conveyancing Act 1919
  3. 3 Whether a stay of final orders ought to be granted pending appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiffs were not entitled to indemnity costs against the Second Defendant because, despite the Second Defendant's evidence being rejected as untruthful, there was insufficient basis to find deliberate misconduct or perjury; party and party costs are appropriate. The 49% transfer of the Dolls Point Property was void under s 37A of the Conveyancing Act 1919. A stay of orders was appropriate for 28 days to permit appeal, conditioned on non-disposal of the property interest.

Court Disposition

Orders made as declared and outlined; costs awarded on party-party basis; stay granted for 28 days.

Orders

  • Declare pursuant to s.37A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 that the transfer registered on 29 January 2013 of a 49% interest in 4 Skinners Avenue, Dolls Point is void.
  • Order the Defendants to execute and lodge a transfer of 49% of the Dolls Point Property to the First Defendant as tenant in common within 7 days.