As loving sons, Huljich brothers drew on the $80 million generated from their 1995 sale of Best Corporation to support mother Elizabeth. Her claims to have been tricked by sons Christopher and Michael were dismissed in the High Court. Justice Venning described her claims as frivolous and vexatious. She was ordered to pay her two sons full legal costs of $605,800, an unusual step since winning litigants normally are awarded only a portion of legal costs.
Canvassing evidence given in the week-long trial, Justice Venning said her claims were hopeless, lacking legal merit. He was particularly critical of fraud allegations made against eldest son Christopher and youngest son Michael with no evidence of fraud ever produced.
The High Court was told of an informal agreement in the 1980s within the Huljich family that sons Christopher, Michael and Paul would financially assist their parents. Matriarch Elizabeth was subsequently funded for regular holidays to Australia, new cars and some renovations to her home. Mortgages on both her home and investment properties she owned were cleared. Accommodation rentals were also paid for one of Elizabeth’s relatives in financial distress. At a time when Christopher and Michael were facing a liquidity crisis, in part because Paul had drawn down more than his entitlement from Best Corporation sale they said, Elizabeth assisted with temporary financing. Paul was facing legal action for unpaid legal fees after an unsuccessful court case in America. In 1997, bank accounts receiving net proceeds of Best Corporation sale were almost one million dollars overdrawn. Elizabeth allowed properties she owned personally be used as collateral for temporary banking facilities available for her sons. The informal nature of this business relationship resulted in a sharp divide within the family: Christopher and Michael on one side; Elizabeth and middle son Paul on the other. Elizabeth sued sons Christopher and Michael with a long list of complaints: primarily she claimed they owed her money and were in breach of a binding contract promising her financial support; and secondly that son Paul had been hard done by.
There was never any binding legal agreement, Justice Venning ruled. There was no certainty as to either the terms of any agreement or who were the parties. Promised financial support from Christopher and Michael was an informal family arrangement, unenforceable at law.
Evidence was given that before Elizabeth sued, Christopher offered to pay the cost of an audit of all family financial dealings and to have any dispute go to arbitration. When Elizabeth did file legal proceedings, Christopher immediately offered to pay Elizabeth what she demanded, while denying all her claims. This would keep the family name out of the courts. She did not take up the offer, later adding further claims. She went public with a media interview. Attempts at mediation failed. Elizabeth refused to attend a reconvened mediation. Multiple offers to settle were all refused.
After hearing the evidence at trial, Justice Venning ruled there was no substance to Elizabeth’s claims against Christopher and Michael. They did not owe her money. Accounting evidence established that Christopher and Michael repaid more than they had drawn down on the banking facility guaranteed by their mother. Paul still owed his mother $268,300, money drawn down, not repaid. In addition, accounting evidence established Elizabeth still owed Christopher $160,000 promised reimbursement for house renovations. Christopher had never demanded payment from his mother.
Ordering Elizabeth pay in full the legal costs incurred by Christopher and Michael, Justice Venning said court resources are scarce. Frivolous and vexatious legal claims not only impact on those having to defend the claims but also draw on scarce court resources, he said.
Huljich v. Huljich – High Court (25.03.19 & 20.12.18)
19.065