Fr John Vesic Successfully Sued by His Mother In Court

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,680
8,037
US
✟1,060,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
MOD HAT ON

241656_73a4b943f6c592cdf71a88c50d5eb4d8.jpg


Please read and abide by each forum's Statement of Purpose; Statement of Purpose threads are sticky threads located at the top of the forum's page. Not all forums have a Statement of Purpose thread.

MOD HAT OFF
 
Upvote 0

Simon C

New Member
Jun 10, 2022
3
0
46
Birsbane
✟7,933.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
MOD HAT ON

241656_73a4b943f6c592cdf71a88c50d5eb4d8.jpg


Please read and abide by each forum's Statement of Purpose; Statement of Purpose threads are sticky threads located at the top of the forum's page. Not all forums have a Statement of Purpose thread.

MOD HAT OFF
MOD HAT ON

241656_73a4b943f6c592cdf71a88c50d5eb4d8.jpg


Please read and abide by each forum's Statement of Purpose; Statement of Purpose threads are sticky threads located at the top of the forum's page. Not all forums have a Statement of Purpose thread.

MOD HAT OFF
 
Upvote 0

Simon C

New Member
Jun 10, 2022
3
0
46
Birsbane
✟7,933.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Not sure what definition of ‘successfully’ you are using Simon. Reading the judgement it is clear that the charges were dismissed and were unsuccessful.

it seems like you have an axe to grind against innocent people

I don't know what judgement you are reading but it clearly says judgement for the mother and requires Fr Vesic to pay his mother $35K!
 
Upvote 0

Bob Crowley

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 27, 2015
2,999
1,858
69
Logan City
✟747,016.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I couldn't be bothered trying to read the court transcript all the way through, but it appears to be a financial matter between family members due to a property or properties. It is not a religious issue.

Conclusion

225. I have determined that Lillian should succeed against John in recovering the $25,000 which he failed to pay when she demanded it in mid-2015. However, the sum of $1,090 must be set off against that. I would therefore propose that judgment be entered for $23,910 plus interest at the rate prescribed under clause 2.1 of Schedule 2 to the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT). I calculate that interest to be $7,744.45 (on the assumption that the outstanding balance should have been paid by John by no later than the end of 2015).

226. Lillian’s claim against BAL must be dismissed.

227. I will hear the parties as to costs.

Orders of the Court

228. The orders of the Court are:

(1) Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $31,654.45.

(2) Judgment for the second defendant.

(3) The Notice claiming contribution or indemnity filed on 26 March 2021 and issued by the second defendant against the first defendant is dismissed

 
Upvote 0

ICXC

Member
Oct 24, 2022
8
0
44
Brisbane
✟15,709.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I couldn't be bothered trying to read the court transcript all the way through, but it appears to be a financial matter between family members due to a property or properties. It is not a religious issue.

Great point! I don't understand why a personal property dispute is being posted on a Christian forum? It has no relevance on religious issues or International politics. Simon's intent seems to be to air dirty laundry about a family which contributes nothing to meaningful discussion.

Regardless, if you read through the judgement it clearly shows that Lili was the plaintiff and the two defendants were a law firm and her son.

The judge clearly summarized what the charges were:
174. I propose to deal with each of the causes of action pressed by the plaintiff in turn. Her primary claim is for the Deed of arrangement to be set aside on the basis of unconscionable conduct on John’s part. Her secondary claim against John is for enforcement of the express provisions of the Deed. I will then turn to John’s set-off and counterclaim. Finally, Lillian claims damages against BAL on the bases as outlined by her counsel in opening.

Then the judgement shows:
194. I reject Lillian’s claim that John acted unconscionably.
202. In my view these findings enliven the power of the Court to remedy the situation created by Lillian’s conduct in accordance with the principles of Walton Stores Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387 (see also Sidhu v Van Dyke [2014] HCA 19; 251 CLR 505). I conclude therefore that Lillian is estopped from relying on the apportionment provisions in the Deed. That estoppel is subject to John’s agreement in or about March 2016 to pay all of the rates and taxes in relation to the Phillip property (see paragraph 153 of Ex “D1-1”). I note that John took that step in an attempt to assist his parents given their difficult financial circumstances.
224. I do not accept that submission. It is plain from the context, and Mr Morton’s explanation (see [163] above), which I accept, that he was addressing the issue which Lillian had raised as to whether there was a need for a deed at all, or whether the transaction could just be done with the conveyancing documents. There was nothing misleading or deceptive about the statement.

The judge didn't seem to have a high opinion of Lili either.
169. Like Mr Morton, I formed the impression that Lillian is an intelligent and competent person. However, I have a number of concerns about the accuracy of her testimony. She tended to be garrulous and, as submitted by counsel for the defendants, her answers were often expansive, argumentative and self-serving. On a number of occasions under cross-examination, Lillian simply refused to make reasonable concessions. The most notable of these related to her claim that John was present at the 20 August 2014 meeting. Having regard to the contents of Mr Morton’s file notes, his evidence that he only met with her, and John’s evidence as to where he was on 20 August 2014, Lillian’s refusal to concede she was wrong about his presence at the meeting is very difficult to understand. I formed the distinct impression that Lillian saw it as important to her case against BAL that John was at that meeting and that her belief in that regard motivated that refusal.
 
Upvote 0

ICXC

Member
Oct 24, 2022
8
0
44
Brisbane
✟15,709.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So in the end, none of the charges were accepted. The judge awarded Lili 25K to assist in compensating her high court costs however the deed was not set aside, the judge accepted John was providing assistance and the claims against the law firm were dismissed. This means she now has to pay court costs for both of the defendants! Doesn't sound very 'successful' to me.
 
Upvote 0

Trust55

New Member
Jun 21, 2023
1
0
68
Penrith
✟301.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Regardless of the outcome of the court case, what is in question, is the principles of Christian beliefs.
For a family matter ( between mother and son) to proceed through mediation, and end up before judge highlights the lack of integrity of Fr Vesic.
 
Upvote 0