Metropolitan Petar v Mitreski [2006] NSWSC 405

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Metropolitan Petar v Mitreski [2006] NSWSC 405

HEARING DATE(S) : 3 May 2006

JUDGMENT DATE : 3 May 2006

JURISDICTION : Equity

JUDGMENT OF : Hamilton J

DECISION : Form of injunctive relief pursuant to [2006] NSWSC 336 determined.

CATCHWORDS : EQUITY [338] Equitable remedies - Injunctions - Interlocutory injunctions – Application to restrain use of property alleged to be subject to charitable trust to pay defendants' costs of proceedings – Form of orders.

CASES CITED : Metropolitan Petar v Mitreski [2006] NSWSC 336

His Grace Metropolitan Petar, the Diocesan Bishop of the Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of Australia and New Zealand (P1) The Very Reverend Father Mitko Mitrev (P2) Lambe Mitreski (D1) Pero Damceski (D2) PARTIES : Boris Minovski (D3) Eftim Eftimov (D4) Mile Marcevski (D5) Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Incorporated (D6) Naum Despotovski (D8) Attorney General for State of NSW (D9)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 3369/97

T G R Parker SC and R E Steele (Ps) COUNSEL : G O Blake SC (Ds1 - 6 & 8) C Tassone (Solicitor) (D9)

Sachs Gerace Lawyers (Ps) SOLICITORS : McConnell Jaffray (Ds1 - 6 & 8) I V Knight, Crown Solicitor (D9)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

HAMILTON J

WEDNESDAY, 3 MAY 2006

3369/97 HIS EMINENCE PETAR THE DIOCESAN BISHOP OF THE MACEDONIAN ORTHODOX DIOCESE OF AUSTRALIA & NEW ZEALAND & ORS v LAMBE MITRESKI & ORS

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: There has been argument before me this morning on conflicting versions of the short minutes as to the injunctive orders that I ought make as a result of my judgment of 27 April 2006: Petar v Mitreski [2006] NSWSC 336 ("my judgment"). Mr Blake, of Senior Counsel for the defendants, argues that the injunction I grant ought extend not only to costs of these proceedings but to costs of what have been called the judicial advice proceedings and the judicial advice appeal proceedings. I think that is correct. The use of the Schedule A property should be restrained in relation to all three sets of proceedings. Mr Blake argues that this injunction should relate generally only to costs incurred after 7 May 2004 and that the use of property to pay costs incurred in the judicial advice proceedings before that date ought not be restrained. Despite opposition by Mr Parker, of Senior Counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs, I agree with Mr Blake that it is clearly the intent of my judgment that there should be no restraint of payment of the costs of these proceedings incurred up to 7 May 2004 and the injunction will be moulded accordingly. However, whether or not payment of costs of the judicial advice proceedings incurred before that day could be said to be literally excluded from the injunctive relief as defined in [36], it was not my intention to deal in that way with the costs of the judicial advice proceedings which, in my view, fall within the area to be dealt with by the judicial advice Judge and are contemplated by the judicial advice Judge as falling within that area. The injunction will therefore be moulded to restrain payment of legal costs of these proceedings incurred after 7 May 2004 and legal costs of the judicial advice proceedings and the judicial advice appeal proceedings generally.