Djordjevic v Mondino [2023] FCA 882

Djordjevic v Mondino [2023] FCA 882

The Deed was not entered into as a result of undue influence, duress, or unconscionable conduct. The respondent was not under a recognised relationship giving rise to a presumption of undue influence, was given time and opportunity to review and seek advice on the Deed, and there was no coercion or unlawful pressure. The process and terms of negotiation were fair, and there is no legal basis for setting aside the Deed. Thus, the respondent must specifically perform his obligations under the Deed, including signing the consent orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of Sequestration Order and Application to Set Aside a Deed / Interlocutory Application—hearing and Determination
Outcome
Application to set aside the Deed dismissed; order for respondent to specifically perform Deed's terms
Legal Topics
['sequestration Orders' 'setting Aside Deeds' 'mediation Agreements' 'undue Influence' 'duress' 'unconscionable Conduct']
['bankruptcy and Insolvency' 'practice and Procedure'] ['sequestration Orders' 'setting Aside Deeds' 'mediation Agreements' 'undue Influence' 'duress' 'unconscionable Conduct']

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

Application for Review of Sequestration Order and Application to Set Aside a Deed / Interlocutory Application—hearing and Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the deed executed after mediation resolving a dispute over a sequestration order should be set aside for undue influence, duress, or unconscionable conduct' 'Whether the respondent is required to perform obligations under the Deed including signing consent orders']

Ratio Decidendi

The Deed was not entered into as a result of undue influence, duress, or unconscionable conduct. The respondent was not under a recognised relationship giving rise to a presumption of undue influence, was given time and opportunity to review and seek advice on the Deed, and there was no coercion or unlawful pressure. The process and terms of negotiation were fair, and there is no legal basis for setting aside the Deed. Thus, the respondent must specifically perform his obligations under the Deed, including signing the consent orders.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside the Deed dismissed; order for respondent to specifically perform Deed's terms

Orders

  • ["The respondent's interlocutory application dated 19 June 2023, seeking that the deed be set aside, is dismissed." "The respondent is required to specifically perform his obligation under cl 3.2(b) of the Deed, executed by him on 5 June 2023, and sign and return to the applicant for filing with the Court the...