Ana Lulic v Denise Lulic [2016] NSWDC 6

Ana Lulic v Denise Lulic [2016] NSWDC 6

The deed dated 3 June 2013 was not unjust in the circumstances in which it was made. The contract resulted from a negotiated process between the parties, not from the defendant being overborne or unfairly pressured by the plaintiff. The defendant had legal and financial advice and was not deprived of a real or informed choice. The terms were reasonable and there was no material inequality in bargaining power. Thus, the defendant was not entitled to relief under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW), and the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the sum claimed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
['unjust Contract' 'contracts Review Act 1980 (nsw)' 'family Provision' 'estate Distribution' 'procedural and Substantive Unfairness']
['contract Law' 'estate Law'] ['unjust Contract' 'contracts Review Act 1980 (nsw)' 'family Provision' 'estate Distribution' 'procedural and Substantive Unfairness']

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

Procedural Posture

Civil / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the deed signed on 3 June 2013, or any provision of it, was unjust in the circumstances relating to the contract at the time it was made' 'Whether the court should exercise its discretion and refuse to enforce any or all of the provisions of the contract' 'Whether the contract should be declared void in whole or in part' 'Whether the court should make an order varying, in whole or in part, any provision of the contract' 'Whether the plaintiff had any moral or legal claim against the estate of the late Roni Lulic']

Ratio Decidendi

The deed dated 3 June 2013 was not unjust in the circumstances in which it was made. The contract resulted from a negotiated process between the parties, not from the defendant being overborne or unfairly pressured by the plaintiff. The defendant had legal and financial advice and was not deprived of a real or informed choice. The terms were reasonable and there was no material inequality in bargaining power. Thus, the defendant was not entitled to relief under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW), and the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the sum claimed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $325,000.00.' "Defendant to pay the plaintiff's interest as agreed in the sum of $45,465.00 on the judgment sum. Total judgment: $370,465.00." "Defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis up to and including 18 May 2015 and thereafter on an...