IT is a lengthy, intriguing, incredibly expensive legal saga complete with lies and allegations of fraud that would make a juicy courtroom drama, but at its heart is the sad reality that two pensioners are facing financial ruin and the loss of their Wallsend home.
The case caused Supreme Court Justice Peter Garling to muse that the expense of the litigation must now exceed the $420,000 that is the subject of the proceedings.
Justice Garling recently found in favour of Provident Capital, which loaned Dimitar Naumovski and Milica Naumovska $420,000 as a mortgage on their Wallsend home in 2007.
The loan was obtained to help the Naumovskis’ daughter, Suzana Nedanovski, who was facing financial pressures caused by her failing fish and chip shop. Mrs Nedanovski was unable to obtain further credit to repay other loans, the court heard.
Neither she nor her parents, on the old age pension, were able to make the repayments and they defaulted on the loan.
Provident Capital then sought to take action against the Naumovskis, but they challenged that action on a number of grounds.
Mrs Nedanovski went so far as to claim she had defrauded her parents, but Justice Garling rejected that suggestion, describing evidence as ‘‘untruthful’’ and ‘‘inaccurate’’.
He made similar findings against the Naumovskis.
‘‘This case is not easy of resolution,’’ Justice Garling said.
‘‘Evidence was in conflict. There were allegations of fraud and misleading and deceptive conduct.
‘‘Suggestions were made ... that witnesses were lying and being deliberately untruthful in their evidence.’’
Drawn into the saga were lawyers who acted for the family and the Registrar General of NSW.
There were five sets of lawyers at the hearings and six barristers briefed.
‘‘Because of [the] complexities [of the case], this judgment has taken an unduly long time to produce,’’ Justice Garling said.
‘‘The Naumovskis have attempted to persuade the court that they were the victims of a fraud perpetrated upon them by their daughter, Suzana ... I am not satisfied that the Naumovskis have established any of their defences and claims.’’
The case will return to court next week where final orders may be made including who will foot the legal bills.