Zarbalas v Vergos [2017] NSWDC 439

Zarbalas v Vergos [2017] NSWDC 439

The formal loan agreements signed by both parties and witnessed, evidenced genuine loans totalling $66,000. Mr Vergos was not able to establish that he repaid the $10,000 loan or that he did not receive the remaining $56,000. Both the claim for a caretaking fee and for an occupancy licence fee failed due to lack of evidence supporting such agreements. The $1,000 per week 'compensation' was a penalty and therefore not recoverable; however, statutory interest under s 100 Civil Procedure Act 2005 was awarded.

Parties
Plaintiff/cross Defendant: Vasilios Zarbalas; Defendant/cross Claimant: Kosta Vergos
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Final Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff. Cross-claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Loans, Sham Transactions, Caretaking Fees, Occupancy Fee, Penalty Interest
Commerce Contracts Loans Sham Transactions Caretaking Fees Occupancy Fee Penalty Interest

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vasilios Zarbalas

Plaintiff/cross Defendant

Kosta Vergos

Defendant/cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Vergos received loans totalling $66,000 from Mr Zarbalas and whether $10,000 was repaid.
  2. 2 Whether Mr Vergos agreed to pay Mr Zarbalas $20 an hour for caretaking; if so, for how many hours.
  3. 3 Whether Mr Zarbalas agreed to pay Mr Vergos $500 per week as an occupancy licence fee.

Ratio Decidendi

The formal loan agreements signed by both parties and witnessed, evidenced genuine loans totalling $66,000. Mr Vergos was not able to establish that he repaid the $10,000 loan or that he did not receive the remaining $56,000. Both the claim for a caretaking fee and for an occupancy licence fee failed due to lack of evidence supporting such agreements. The $1,000 per week 'compensation' was a penalty and therefore not recoverable; however, statutory interest under s 100 Civil Procedure Act 2005 was awarded.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff. Cross-claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $80,733.14 inclusive of interest.
  • Dismiss the cross-claim for the occupation licence fee.