Srecko Juric-Kacunic v Stan Vaupotic [2013] NSWSC 41
The plaintiffs' detailed, corroborated evidence established that monies were advanced as loans and secured by a valid, enforceable deed, signed knowingly by the defendant. Defences of limitation, non est factum, unconscionability, and application of the Contracts Review Act 1980 all fail as the deed is valid, in time, and neither unconscionable nor unjust.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 30 January 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Principal Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiffs
- Legal Topics
- ['deeds' 'limitation Period' 'validity of Deed' 'stamp Duty' 'unconscionability' 'contracts Review Act' 'non Est Factum']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Limitation period for causes of action under a deed' 'Validity of undated deed' 'Admissibility of unstamped deed in proceedings' 'Relief from obligations under Contracts Review Act 1980, unconscionability or non est factum']
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiffs' detailed, corroborated evidence established that monies were advanced as loans and secured by a valid, enforceable deed, signed knowingly by the defendant. Defences of limitation, non est factum, unconscionability, and application of the Contracts Review Act 1980 all fail as the deed is valid, in time, and neither unconscionable nor unjust.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiffs
Orders
- ['The defendant is indebted to the plaintiffs in the amount claimed by the plaintiffs, together with interest.' 'The defendant should pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment