Ristevski v Markovski [2010] NSWDC 173

Ristevski v Markovski [2010] NSWDC 173

The plaintiffs proved that they lent $100,000 to the defendant personally on or about 7 June 2002 and not to Tihana Group Pty Ltd or through their son as lender. The court accepted the evidence of Mr Kosta Ristevski and Zoran Ristevski, rejected the defendant's evidence as untruthful and inconsistent with documents and pleadings, and found that the unpaid balance, agreed interest and refinancing expenses resulted from the defendant's breach of the loan agreement. The responsibility for the 3 May 2010 hearing not proceeding lay with the defendant rather than his former solicitor.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings for Breach of Contract / Judgment After Hearing; Application for Costs Against Defendant's Former Solicitor Also Determined
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendant in the sum of $166,984.36 inclusive of interest; defendant to pay plaintiffs' costs; application for the costs of the 3 May 2010 hearing date to be paid by the defendant's former solicitor refused.
Legal Topics
['breach of Contract' 'loan Agreement' 'whether Loan Was Personal or to a Company' 'witness Credibility' 'jones V Dunkel Inference' 'costs of Vacated Hearing Date' 'application for Costs Against Former Solicitor']
['contract Law' 'civil Procedure' 'evidence' 'corporations'] ['breach of Contract' 'loan Agreement' 'whether Loan Was Personal or to a Company' 'witness Credibility' 'jones V Dunkel Inference' 'costs of Vacated Hearing Date' 'application for Costs Against Former Solicitor']

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 Proceedings for Breach of Contract / Judgment After Hearing; Application for Costs Against Defendant's Former Solicitor Also Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs lent $100,000 to the defendant personally or to Tihana Group Pty Ltd.' 'Whether the loan was made by the plaintiffs or by their son, Zoran Ristevski.' 'Whether the defendant breached the agreement by failing to repay principal and agreed interest.' 'Whether a Jones v Dunkel inference should be drawn from the second plaintiff not giving evidence.' "Whether the defendant's former solicitor should pay the costs thrown away by the vacated 3 May 2010 hearing date." 'What amount should be awarded for outstanding principal, interest and refinancing expenses.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs proved that they lent $100,000 to the defendant personally on or about 7 June 2002 and not to Tihana Group Pty Ltd or through their son as lender. The court accepted the evidence of Mr Kosta Ristevski and Zoran Ristevski, rejected the defendant's evidence as untruthful and inconsistent with documents and pleadings, and found that the unpaid balance, agreed interest and refinancing expenses resulted from the defendant's breach of the loan agreement. The responsibility for the 3 May 2010 hearing not proceeding lay with the defendant rather than his former solicitor.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendant in the sum of $166,984.36 inclusive of interest; defendant to pay plaintiffs' costs; application for the costs of the 3 May 2010 hearing date to be paid by the defendant's former solicitor refused.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiffs in the sum of $166,984.36 inclusive of interest.' "Defendant pay plaintiffs' costs, including the costs of the vacated hearing date of 3 May 2010." "Application for the 3 May 2010 hearing date to be paid by the defendant's former solicitor refused." 'Liberty to apply.' 'Exhibits...