Over the course of his legal career, Eugene Gramelis has appeared regularly, both as lead advocate as well as working alongside eminent Queen's Counsel and Senior Counsel, in many cases of legal significance, which have impacted on the law and have added to the existing body of legal principles and jurisprudence. A number of cases Eugene has appeared in are detailed below.
This was a family law property hearing involving substantial assets in Australia and France.
These were family law parenting proceedings involving allegations of family violence and abuse toward the children. Issues of “unacceptable risk” and “sole parental responsibility” were considered by the Court.
These were proceedings in the Family Court in which the Court considered and applied the principles applicable to summary dismissal and security for costs in family law property proceedings where it was being alleged that the husband had transferred his business to a third party to frustrate the wife’s property entitlements.
This decision involved a determination in the Family Court of Australia as to jurisdictional and “forum” issues and questions of statutory interpretation arising from the adoption by Australia of the Hague Child Protection Convention, being a developing area of law.
LL and Anor & MR and Anor  FamCA 690 (21 July 2006), Finn, Coleman, Boland JJ
This was an appeal to the Full Court of the Family Court raising issues with respect to the “associated” and “accrued” jurisdiction of the Family Court and the joinder of third parties to family law proceedings.
This case involved interim parenting proceedings in the Family Court of Australia in which the parties were in high conflict and the children were strongly aligned with one parent amidst allegations of attempts by that parent to alienate the children from the other parent.
This case involved the substantive hearing of the above parenting proceedings as well as the property dispute between the parties and included a consideration of the Husband’s greater initial contributions as well as whether the orders sought by each party were just and equitable in light of the High Court decision of Stanford v. Stanford.
Clifford v Mayr and Anor  NSWSC 16 (4 February 2009), McLaughlin AsJ
This was a family provision claim by a de facto wife. The deceased’s Will left the family home to their three children to be held on trust by the paternal grandfather and uncle. The deceased left the rest of his estate to the widow. The Court reinforced the principle that it must be scrupulous and zealous in protecting the interests of those persons who are not capable of protecting their own interests.
Sabag v Health Care Complaints Commission  NSWCA 411 (16 November 2001), Beazley JA, Davies AJA, Sperling J
This was an appeal to the NSW Court of Appeal from disciplinary proceedings involving a medical practitioner. The appeal was successful in setting aside the first instance determination, which had involved a complaint of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct against the medical practitioner, and a new trial was ordered. Ultimately the medical practitioner was reinstated to practice.
This was an appeal to a single judge of the Supreme Court of NSW from a decision of a Local Court magistrate regarding a dispute over the sale of a motor vehicle. The learned magistrate was found to have fallen into error by neglecting to take into consideration an element of the appellant’s defence.
Ayteniz v Nrma Insurance  NSWSC 406 (19 May 2003), Master Harrison
The first instance proceedings involved a claim pursuant to an insurance policy arising from arson in respect of a motor vehicle. The insurer alleged fraud. This was an appeal to the Supreme Court of NSW from the determination of a Local Court Magistrate alleging error of law as to the test applied by the learned Magistrate relating to onus of proof.
This was an appeal to the Supreme Court of NSW from a decision in the CTTT arising from a building dispute. The appeal concerned itself with interpretation issues relating to “notice” requirements and distinguishing that term from that of “service”.
Clifford v Mayr  NSWCA 6 (10 February 2010), Campbell JA, Young JA, Handley AJA
This was an appeal to the Court of Appeal from the determination of the trial judge, McLaughlin AsJ to dismiss the widow’s claim in family provision proceedings. The Court of Appeal considered whether the trial judge had erred in his consideration of the “jurisdictional question” and whether he’d double counted certain assets.
This was an application to set aside a statutory demand served on a company where the demand was based on a default judgment debt in circumstances where the judgment had been rescinded.
This decision concerned an application in the Supreme Court of NSW by a litigant in person to re-open interlocutory proceedings in which the learned justice ordered costs against the litigant in person on a payable forthwith” basis.
This was an appeal to the District Court from a determination of the CTTT in a Strata dispute. The grounds of appeal included allegations that the learned Member had fallen into error by denying procedural fairness to the appellant. The sufficiency of evidence and reasons of the Member were scrutinised during the appeal. Various statutory interpretation issues in respect of the strata legislation were also canvassed.
Pirillo v Telstra Corporation Ltd  NSWCA 463 (16 December 1999), Priestly JA, Brownie AJA
This was an appeal to the NSW Court of Appeal concerning an assessment of damages for personal injury. The trial judge failed to take into account one aspect of the plaintiff’s damages. The Court of Appeal took the view that the learned trial judge had fallen into error and that the error had sufficient significance to warrant an order for a new trial.
These were judicial review proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW in which the Plaintiff sought relief in the nature of certiorari and declaratory orders from a decision of a Review Panel’s determination arising from a Costs Assessment of solicitor-client costs.
It has been refreshing to find someone who has integrity, someone you feel actually cares about your outcome and goes that extra mile. It is important to me that my lawyer understands the challenges I am going through and is able to offer a very human and caring approach. Eugene has a personable nature, is extremely professional, timely and very obliging. I feel like I have found someone who will stand by me. I highly recommend Eugene and the Gramelis Attorneys team.
Vicky, Harrington Grove, NSW - Homemaker