Srecko Juric-Kacunic v Stan Vaupotic [2013] NSWSC 41

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.

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

  1. 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.']