Vickery v JJP Custodians [2002] NSWSC 782

Christos Nantsou was not liable to Dr Vickery because he did not authorise the loan transaction, did not benefit from the payments, and the power of attorney had been revoked by oral limitation prior to the loan. Therefore, causes of action for money had and received, money paid, and unjust enrichment against Christos failed.

Parties: Plaintiff: Graham John Vickery; First Defendant: JJP Custodians Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Done Nantsou; Third Defendant: Christos Nantsou
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 30 August 2002
Procedural Posture: Equity Proceedings / Judgment After Final Hearing
Outcome: Proceedings dismissed
Legal Topics: Power of Attorney, Termination of Authority, Ostensible Authority, Notice Under S 162 Conveyancing Act, Unjust Enrichment, Money Had and Received, Money Paid, Restitutionary Claims

Conveyancing Agency Restitution Power of Attorney Termination of Authority Ostensible Authority Notice Under S 162 Conveyancing Act Unjust Enrichment +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 39 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4

Parties

Graham John Vickery

Plaintiff

JJP Custodians Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Done Nantsou

Second Defendant

Christos Nantsou

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceedings / Judgment After Final Hearing

Legal Issues

1 Whether the power of attorney executed by Christos Nantsou in favour of his son Donald authorised Donald to execute the loan agreement with JJP Custodians Pty Ltd.
2 Whether the power of attorney had been revoked or terminated at the time of the loan agreement.
3 Whether Christos Nantsou is liable to Dr Vickery for money had and received, money paid, or on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed