Month: May 2020

37. Caveat claiming resulting implied or constructive trust removed – No prima facie case – Difference between “prima facie case” and “serious question to be tried” tests – Circumstances in which hearsay admissible on application under TLA s. 90(3).

SMAV Nominees Pty Ltd v Bakal Enterprises Pty Ltd [2020] VSC 203 (24 April 2020), Derham AsJ

Comment.   This case is interesting for the following reasons –

1.   It considers the circumstances in which hearsay is admissible on an application to remove a caveat under the Transfer of Land Act s. 90(3).  See also Blog 11.

2.     Derham AsJ considers whether the caveator has to show, as to the existence of its asserted legal or equitable rights in the land, on the one hand a prima facie case or on the other hand a serious question to be tried.  His Honour states that the first is the correct test (as previously stated in Blog 1) and indeed states (at [64]) that the first test requires a higher standard than the second, citing the decision of Warren CJ in Piroshenko v Grojsman [2010] VSC 240; (2010) 27 VR 489.  It is, however, difficult to find any case in which a court holds that a caveator met one and not the other test (in this case Derham AsJ finds that caveator failed both), and indeed in Concrete Mining Structures Pty Ltd v Cellcrete Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 888 at [33] (not a caveat case) Edelman J stated that the difference between the two tests is one of language not of substance.

3.   Although his Honour simply ordered that the caveator pay the plaintiff’s costs of the application he reserved liberty to apply in relation to his proposed orders.  It was ominous that he also found that the caveat had been used as a bargaining chip as this may foreshadow indemnity costs – see Blog 35 and previous Blogs on costs. 

The facts were –

·      In October and November 2017 the plaintiff’s sole director Mavroudis loaned Sabawi a total of $200,000.

·     In April 2018 Mavroudis was introduced to 294 Pound Road Hampton Park (“the property”) by Sabawi, whom he believed to be a licensed real estate agent.   On 13 April he signed a “Letter of Offer Expression of Interest” and paid a holding deposit of $10,000 to one of the vendors at the direction of Sabawi.

·    On or about 17 April 2018 Sabawi asked Mavroudis for his bank account details so that he could repay the loan of $200,000.  Mavroudis did this.  Sabawi subsequently advised Mavroudis that he had repaid the $200,000 to his account.  Mavroudis received the $200,000 into his account on 18 April 2018, recorded in his bank statement as “Inward Telegraphic Transfer 180490”.   

·   On 7 July 2018 Sabawi presented the contract of sale to Mavroudis for signing with the purchaser named as “294 Pound Road Pty Ltd” and the vendor’s estate agent named as a particular company formed by the two of them other than for the purpose of selling real estate.  Mavroudis signed only after insisting that the document be altered to show the plaintiff as purchaser and the sale as being by private treaty.   The plaintiff became registered proprietor. 

·  On 23 August 2019, the solicitors for the plaintiff and Mavroudis received a letter of demand from the then solicitors for the first defendant (“Bakal Enterprises”) demanding repayment of $200,000.  Among other things the letter alleged that, following discussion with an unnamed mutual friend, Bakal Enterprises had paid $200,000 into Mavroudis’s account on 18 April 2018 as a contribution towards a development on the property, which had fallen over.  Shortly before this letter Mavroudis received a telephone call to similar effect from, he gathered, Bakal, who was Bakal Enterprises’ sole director.

·        On 27 August 2019 the plaintiff’s solicitors responded, stating that Mavroudis’ first knowledge of these allegations was in this telephone call and refuting them.  On 16 September 2019 the then solicitors for Bakal Enterprises responded confirming that the mutual friend was Sabawi, enclosing a receipt so as to corroborate the statement that Bakal Enterprises and not Sabawi had made the $200,000 payment, and demanding its repayment. 

·     The plaintiff heard nothing further until receiving notice that Bakal Enterprises through its new solicitors Madgwicks had caveated on 10 February 2020 claiming a freehold interest in the property on the basis of a resulting implied or constructive trust.

·     The plaintiff’s solicitors demanded removal of the caveat and stated  that the $200,000 had been repayment of a loan by Sabawi.  On 27 and 28 February Madgwicks and the plaintiff’s solicitors communicated, in the course of which:

·       Madgwicks stated that Sabawi denied the loan, maintaining that the caveator had an interest in the land arising from the contribution of $200,000 towards its purchase;

·   the plaintiff’s solicitors provided documentary evidence of the $200,000 loan to Sabawi, foreshadowed caveat removal proceedings, reiterated Mavroudis’ previous account of the facts, and stated that: the plaintiff had purchased the property with its own funds and financial assistance from Mavroudis’s father; a planning permit for a subdivision of the property was imminent; the plaintiff had a very interested buyer once it could sell with plans and permits but that this was impeded by the caveat. 

·        On or about 5 March Bakal and Sabawi conferred with Madgwicks. On 12 March Madgwicks wrote to the plaintiff’s solicitors stating, after reiterating its instructions about the $200,000 payment, that Sabawi had instructed it that Mavroudis inappropriately altered the name of the purchaser in the contract of sale from 294 Pound Road Pty Ltd (to be incorporated between Mavroudis and Sabawi) to the plaintiff’s name and “[we] are informed by Mr Sabawi that this change was made under false pretences and without adequate payment to Mr Sabawi, who was instrumental in facilitating the sale in the first place …. Mr Sabawi is currently attending to swearing a statutory declaration confirming the above…”.

The plaintiff applied under s. 90(3) of the Transfer of Land Act for removal of the caveat.  Before the caveator filed any evidence Madgwicks offered in return for withdrawal of the caveat that $300,000 be held in trust pending determination of the dispute.

The material before the court included –

·      an affidavit by the caveator’s solicitor which stated that a statutory declaration was being prepared by Sabawi;

·       an affidavit by Bakal.  This affidavit exhibited a statutory declaration, inferred by his Honour to have been prepared by Madgwicks, said to have been made by Sabawi, containing Sabawi’s evidence including disputing Mavroudis’ account of the facts.   Bakal asserted that Sabawi had not sworn an affidavit because of the social distancing measures required in the COVID-19 pandemic. The statutory declaration omitted reference to the false pretences allegation contained in Madgwicks’ letter of 12 March.  It included that: in March 2018 Sabawi told Mavroudis that he was getting a friend to pay the deposit for the purchase; that after the $200,000 payment, Mavroudis acknowledged to Sabawi that the plaintiff had received the money; and he informed Mavroudis at the time of payment that the money was sent to him from Bakal for the purposes of the purchase.

·        Bakal’s affidavit contained a rendition of financial and property dealings between Sabawi and Bakal, with repetition of statements allegedly made by Sabawi about Mavroudis.  Bakal deposed –

·        that he did not know Mavroudis personally and other than the transfer of the $200,000 he had not had any relationship or dealings with him or his entities;

·        (partly denied by Mavroudis) as to an alleged involvement in this transfer of $200,000, garnished with further complex dealings.  He deposed that: on or about 18 April 2018, he transferred $200,000 to the plaintiff by electronic fund transfer, without contact between the plaintiff (or Mavroudis) and Bakal Enterprises (or Bakal); the details of who and when to pay were provided by Sabawi to him.  The reference on the payment produced by Bakal was “Deposit Pound Road”.  

·        affidavits by Mavroudis in which he deposed that when he signed the contract of sale he did not know, or know of, the caveator or anyone associated with it, and that he had not entered into any agreement, either personally or through any agent, with the caveator or any other party in relation to the property.  Mavroudis deposed that there was no truth in the account in the statutory declaration. 

The plaintiff submitted that the statutory declaration was inefficacious for non- compliance with the Oaths and Affirmations Act 2018 in its execution and witnessing. 

Derham AsJ held –

1.     Sabawi could have sworn an affidavit deposing to the matters in his statutory declaration.   The inconsistencies between the statutory declaration and matters raised in correspondence, in particular in the Madgwicks letter of 12 March, were relevant to an assessment of the strength of the caveator’s claim.  [27]-[28]

2.     However, regardless of the efficacy of that statutory declaration under the Oaths and Affirmations Act, the material in it was admissible because –

(a)     Under r. 43.03(2) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, on an interlocutory application an affidavit may contain a statement of fact based on information and belief if the grounds were set out.  This included the identification of the supplier of the information, ie its source.  Nonetheless, the Court had a discretion to admit an affidavit non-compliant in this regard;

(b)     Section 75 of the Evidence Act 2008 provided that in an interlocutory proceeding the hearsay rule did not apply to evidence if the party who adduced it also adduced evidence of its source.  The source must be identified by name;

(c)     If Bakal’s affidavit had related the material in the statutory declaration as what he had been told by Sabawi it would have been admissible, this application being interlocutory and the source being disclosed. [51]-[56]

3.     His Honour set out the law on caveats in conventional terms, which, as this law is set out in Blog 1, it is unnecessary to repeat except in one regard.   His Honour noted that: the caveator bore the onus of establishing a prima facie case to be tried, ie a probability on the evidence that the caveator will be found to have the asserted legal or equitable rights or interest in the land, not that it was more probable than not that at trial it (his Honour states “the plaintiff” but this appears to be a slip) would succeed; and that probability is sufficient to justify the practical effect which the caveat has on the ability of the registered proprietor to deal with the property in accordance with their normal proprietary rights;

this test was often used interchangeably with whether the caveator established a serious question to be tried, but the prima facie case test was to be preferred;

the “prima facie case” test required a higher standard that the “serious question to be tried” test.  [30]-[33], [64]

4.     Where two people provided the purchase money for a property jointly, but the property was put into the name of one of them only, the property was, in the absence of a relationship giving rise to a presumption of advancement, presumed to be held on resulting trust in favour of the unregistered party in proportion to their contribution. [57]

5.     The caveator had not established a prima facie case or even, if it had been applicable, satisfied the serious question to be tried test, because Mavroudis gave evidence that he believed the payment of $200,000 was repayment of a debt and the evidence to the contrary was at best contained in Sabawi’s statutory declaration, which was of little weight, ambiguous and contrived.   Insofar as it purported to ascribe knowledge to Mavroudis of the purpose of the payment, it did not support a resulting trust claim: there was no identification of the supposed beneficiary of the trust beyond “a friend” and the ambiguous statement that the money was sent to the plaintiff by Bakal for the purpose of purchasing the property.  That might indicate that the beneficiary was to be Sabawi or Bakal.   The only objective evidence supporting the caveator’s claim was the payment of $200,000 itself and the record that Bakal produced that it related to “Pound Road”.   However, there was no evidentiary link between the payment of $200,000 and the payment of the deposit nearly three months later. [58]-[65], [76]

6.     For the same reasons there was also no prima facie case of a Muschinski v Dodds constructive trust.  There was no evidence of consensus between the caveator and the registered proprietor which could give rise to a joint endeavour. [66]-[69]

7.    There was no suggestion that the existence of a claim for restitution gave rise to any equitable interest in the property. [70], [76]

8.     The caveat had been used as a bargaining chip to obtain payment of $200,000.  Although there were many cases in which a caveat dispute was resolved as proposed by the caveator’s solicitors, with the addition of a mechanism for the resolution of the dispute sometimes involving the caveator commencing a proceeding, the registered proprietor was entitled to deal with its property as it saw fit without being restrained by the injunctive effect of the caveat unless the caveator established a proper basis for the caveat. [73]-[76]

9.     The caveator was ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the application.  His Honour however reserved liberty to apply in relation to his proposed orders. [77]

Philip H. Barton

Owen Dixon Chambers West

26 May 2020

 

36. Arguable case of constructive trust but caveat removed on balance of convenience due to conflict with pre-existing orders of Family Court – Undertaking as to damages should have been offered – Harvey v Emery & Ors [2020] VSC 153 (2 April 2020), John Dixon J.

 

Comment.  This case is a good example of an arguable, but not strongly so, interest in the land being trumped by the balance of convenience – John Dixon J. engages in a careful balancing exercise against the background of existing Family Court orders.  Several further general principles emerge –

1.     Non-parties to a marriage claiming an interest in land the subject of Family Court proceedings should expeditiously intervene in those proceedings.

2.    An undertaking as to damages is not commonly required as the price of maintenance of a caveat.  Boensch v Pascoe [2019] HCA 49 at [113] (Blog 29) explains how caveats differ from interlocutory injunctions in this respect.  However, John Dixon J. states an exception, being that such an undertaking is invariably required when a caveat was not removed in circumstances where third party rights would be detrimentally affected. 

3.   The case illustrates that a registered proprietor taking the s. 89A procedure can subsequently take the s. 90(3) procedure.

In Harvey v Emery & Ors [2020] VSC 153 the facts were – 

•  The plaintiff was married to Daniel Emery who was the son of the defendants. In about early 2018 the plaintiff and Daniel entered a contract to acquire a property as their family home for $950,000. They agreed that it would be acquired solely in her name to protect it from his creditors. The price comprised: her contribution of $200,000; an advance by the defendants to her of $200,000; the balance by bank finance secured by first mortgage. The plaintiff became sole registered proprietor.

•  As noted by the judge, it could only be determined at a subsequent trial whether this advance (and any subsequent claimed expenditure) by the defendants was: a loan, and whether to the plaintiff or Daniel or both, and for what purpose, or; an equity contribution in the context of a broader joint enterprise to which the defendants were parties, with the ultimate purpose of providing accommodation to the plaintiff, Daniel, their children and the defendants.  Related to this, were the defendants either chargees or beneficiaries of a resulting or constructive trust?

•  After settlement of the sale the plaintiff briefly resided at the property, vacating due to conflict in the relationship with Daniel that led to its breakdown.  Daniel remained in possession of the property for a period before being placed in custody for undisclosed reasons.

•  In proceedings between the plaintiff and Daniel the Family Court made consent orders in March 2019 including to the effect that – 

•  the plaintiff would transfer the title to the property to him on him refinancing the bank loan to discharge her mortgage and release her from the debt obligation, and on payment by him of $200,000 into her solicitors’ trust account;  

•  if Daniel was unable to refinance the property was to be sold with net proceeds broadly being disbursed in varying proportions between the plaintiff and Daniel after payment of costs and discharge of the mortgage;

•  The parties held their respective interests in the property on trust, with Daniel having the sole right of occupancy and sole liability for mortgage payments and outgoings.  

•  Daniel was unable to refinance and so could not comply with this order, leading to further Family Court orders in October 2019 including – 

•  that plaintiff recover possession of the property to effect its sale, in accordance with the March orders, and Daniel was restrained from caveating or from encumbering the land;  

•  directions for the conduct of the sale and for the distribution of the proceeds. The direction in respect of the priority of distribution of the proceeds was in substance: (a) – (d) payment of the costs and expenses of sale and for discharge of the mortgage; (e) payment to the plaintiff in reduction of the amounts due to her pursuant to the March orders with interest; (f) payment of any remainder to Daniel in reduction of the amounts due to him pursuant to the March orders; a further order relating to the balance owing in respect of a truck and other minor orders.   

•  The defendants were not party to the Family Court proceedings and did not seek to intervene. The settlement of the Family Court proceedings assumed that the whole of the beneficial interest in the property was matrimonial property.

•  In November 2019 the defendants caveated claiming a freehold estate absolutely prohibiting all dealings on the grounds of an implied, resulting or constructive trust.

•  The plaintiff applied under s. 89A of the Transfer of Land Act for removal of the caveat.  In response the defendants commenced a Supreme Court proceeding against her seeking a declaration that the property was held on trust for them as to an amount equivalent both to the above advance of $200,000 and to $120,000 expended on renovations (“the trust proceeding”).

The plaintiff applied pursuant to s. 90(3) to remove the caveat.  Daniel was not a party to either proceeding although he appeared to be a necessary party to the trust proceeding.  He apparently expressed a strong interest in retaining ownership of the property.  The defendants alleged that after the plaintiff had vacated the property, but with her acquiescence, they invested labour and expended approximately $120,000 in renovations and improvements and to enhance its value, in furtherance of a joint endeavour to acquire and improve an extended family home.  The plaintiff disputed this.

John Dixon J. held –

1.   If the allegations in the trust proceeding were proved, the defendants’ beneficial interest ought to have been excluded from the matrimonial property available for division in the settlement reached between the plaintiff and Daniel. [15]

2.  If the defendants’ contentions were correct, they had been adversely affected by the Family Court’s orders. They could enliven the Family Court proceedings, either by applying to intervene and seek a rehearing or by appeal. There was potential for conflict between the resolution of the trust proceeding and the execution of the orders of the Family Court. There were compelling reasons to cross-vest the trust proceeding to the Family Court to be dealt with in conjunction with a reopening of the property settlement orders. This application under s. 90(3) was not the appropriate forum for determination of issues between the parties. [25]-[27]

3.  The defendants had demonstrated some probability that they may be found to have an equitable right or interest in the land as asserted in the caveat, ie a freehold estate in the land based on a joint endeavour giving rise to a constructive trust. And if the renovation expenditure was added the defendants’ percentage claim to the beneficial interest would correspondingly increase. However, although there was a serious question for trial of such a constructive trust the claim did not appear to be strong. It was more probable that the defendants would establish an equitable lien or charge limited to the initial $200,000 advanced, this not being the interest claimed in the caveat. [4], [13], [28], [31], [32], [43], [45]

4.  A relationship existed between the strength of the case establishing a serious question to be tried and the extent to which the caveator must establish that the balance of convenience favoured maintenance of the caveat. Because the constructive trust claim was not strong the balance of convenience obligation fell more heavily on the caveators. There were significant negative practical consequences for the plaintiff if the caveat was maintained, being –

(a) Frustration of the sale ordered by the Family Court, in circumstances where none of the material facts affecting that order were, or since had been, placed before that court at the material time;

(b) The plaintiff would breach the contract of sale, affecting the purchaser’s rights in a manner with adverse consequences for the plaintiff, which could culminate in her reopening the Family Court proceedings to adjust the value of the pool of matrimonial assets underlying their resolution;

(c) Other than belatedly, the defendants had not offered any undertaking as to damages, notwithstanding that this undertaking was invariably required when a caveat was not removed in circumstances where third party rights would be detrimentally affected. Having regard to the belatedness of the offer it was not deserving of weight in the absence of evidence of its worth;

    There was insufficient evidence that the plaintiff had sold at an undervalue, and if the property market was falling the sale should proceed. [5], [33], [39], [45]-[52]

5.  The course that carried the lower risk of injustice, if it should turn out that his Honour was wrong, was to order that the caveat be removed on the following conditions –

a) amendment of the trust proceeding and it being transferred to the Family Court;

(b) relief of the plaintiff of the obligation to comply forthwith with the orders of the Family Court, and in lieu order that the proceeds of sale be distributed in accordance with paragraphs 7(a) – 7(f) of the order of October 2019 and that the balance remaining be deposited into an interest bearing account and not be disbursed save by further order of the Family Court. [53]-[59]

 Philip H. Barton

Owen Dixon Chambers West

19 May 2020

 

35. Costs – Judge busts caveator poker player – Colakoglu v Ozcelik [2020] VSC 139 (25 March 2020), John Dixon J; Diep v Tran & Ors (Costs) 2020 VSC 171 (9 April 2020), John Dixon J; Wegner & Anor v Mayberry [2020] VSC 239 (1 May 2020), Kennedy J.

Comment.   Colakoglu is a mundane caveat removal case in which a caveator, who removed the caveat after service of a s. 90(3) application, was ordered to pay costs on a standard basis – it was unclear whether there had been reasonable cause to lodge the caveat but clear that, in negotiations immediately before its withdrawal, he maintained it inappropriately as a bargaining chip to extract funds to cover his costs.  Diep and Wegner are the latest manifestations of the practice of judges visiting hopeless caveats with indemnity costs.  The caveator in Diep did not help his case by stating that he would not remove the caveat until there was “an offer on the table” and that he “plays poker and was happy to spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars to make a point”.   From the time of the decision of Dodds–Streeton J. in Goldstraw v Goldstraw [2002] VSC 491 at [42] judges have repeated that caveats are not to be used as “bargaining chips”, which the caveator in Diep literally did.  From the blogger’s dim recollection, in vernacular terms the caveator “went bust”, and indeed Google confirms that to “bust” a player in poker (as John Dixon J. did) means you are relieving them of all their chips.

In Colakoglu v Ozcelik [2020] VSC 139 the facts were –

  • The plaintiff and first defendant were married, had purchased a unit then placed in the plaintiff’s name but to which the first defendant claimed he had contributed giving rise to a trust, and proceedings were on foot between them in the Federal Circuit Court in which the beneficial interest of the parties could be adjusted under the Family Law Act.
  • The plaintiff listed the property for sale with the first defendant’s consent, his solicitors advising that he had foregone his interest in the property and had no interest in the proceeds of sale.
  • A contract of sale was accordingly entered into with settlement scheduled for 19 March.  However, on 3 March, notwithstanding their earlier advice, the first defendant’s solicitors lodged a caveat claiming a resulting and/or constructive trust.
  • The plaintiff sought consent to withdrawal of the caveat, on the basis that the sale proceeds would be held by her solicitors in a solicitor’s controlled money account for the benefit of both parties pending resolution of the family law issues.  Before the time for settlement of the contract arrived the parties were not in dispute that the contract ought to settle with the balance of proceeds of sale being paid into trust.
  • However, the first defendant did not remove the caveat, delaying settlement.  But after the plaintiff commenced a proceeding under the TLA s. 90(3) the first defendant withdrew the caveat and the contract settled

John Dixon J. ordered that the costs of the application be paid by the first defendant on a standard basis, dismissed an application for costs against his solicitors, and referred an application for compensation under s. 118 for case management.  His Honour held –

  1. As to whether there was a serious question to be tried, as the unit was to be converted into a fund to be held in trust pending resolution of the family law dispute, the beneficial interest of either party was unaffected, and accordingly whether the first defendant disclaimed any interest in a trust as the plaintiff submitted, or whether he ever had such interest as the first defendant now contended, was a matter for trial. [7]
  2. The balance of convenience favoured removal of the caveat. [16]
  3. The evidence on whether the first defendant had reasonable cause to lodge the caveat was unclear, because he did not engage with the plaintiff’s allegation that he disclaimed any interest in the unit when consenting to its sale.  However, in the negotiations immediately before the withdrawal the caveat continued to be maintained inappropriately as a bargaining chip to extract funds to cover his costs. [13], [22]

In Diep v Tran & Ors (Costs) [2020] VSC 171 –

  • The first defendant lodged a caveat asserting a caveatable interest on the basis of an agreement dated 1 May 2019.   He ignored requests for a copy of this agreement: it was never sighted.
  • The plaintiff’s solicitors requested withdrawal of the caveat, being met with the response that it would not be removed until there was “an offer on the table” and that he “plays poker and was happy to spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars to make a point”.
  • The plaintiff’s solicitors suggested that the caveat be withdrawn, the settlement proceed and the net proceeds of the sale be placed in a trust account pending resolution of the dispute.  The caveator responded in substance: “you said you were going to make an offer, there’s no offer of money.  Why would I remove my caveat if you are not going to give me money?”
  • After caveat removal proceedings were issued the caveat was withdrawn.

His Honour ordered that the caveator pay indemnity costs because: he provided no justification for the interest claimed by his caveat; before issuing the proceeding the plaintiff’s solicitor made a reasonable proposal for retention of the net proceeds of sale; the caveat was used as a bargaining chip to extract a monetary offer – a serious misuse of statutory provisions for an improper or ulterior purpose.

In Wegner & Anor v Mayberry [2020] VSC 239 –

  • The first defendant lodged a caveat on the ground of an implied, resulting or constructive trust over land of which the first plaintiff, his former wife, was a registered proprietor as tenant in common with the second plaintiff.  The purchase of the land had been funded by bank finance secured by mortgage.
  • In April 2019 this caveat was removed by court order with indemnity costs.
  • In July 2019 the first defendant became bankrupt.
  • In January 2020 the first defendant lodged a second caveat on the same ground as the first.   On being requested to remove it he refused until the plaintiffs refinanced and released him from his obligations as a co-borrower.  He was given notice that unless the caveat was withdrawn indemnity costs would be sought.
  • In February 2020 the plaintiffs entered a contract to sell the land for a price below the mortgage debt, the solicitors for the first defendant’s trustee in bankruptcy consented to the sale, and caveat removal proceedings were commenced.

Kennedy J ordered removal of the caveat because the caveator had not established any arguable right or interest in the land (and any interest would now be vested in his trustee in bankruptcy) and the balance of convenience favoured removal: the caveat would adversely affect the sale; it was in everyone’s interests that the mortgage debt be reduced; there was evidence that market may be falling; and the trustee in bankruptcy had consented to the sale.

Indemnity costs were awarded because the caveat had been lodged for a collateral purpose and in disregard of known facts.

Philip H. Barton

Owen Dixon Chambers West

12 May 2020

 

34. Costs – Whether indemnity costs against unsuccessful caveator – Whether solicitor should bear costs.

Alliance Developments Pty Ltd v Arbab & Anor [2019] VSC 832 (20 December 2019), Garde J; Alliance Developments Pty Ltd v Arbab & Ors (No 2) [2020] VSC 37 (14 February 2020).

Comment.   In the first Alliance Developments case Garde J comprehensively examines the law on award of indemnity costs against a caveator and a solicitor and on the importance of adhering to proper conduct in caveating.  The second Alliance Developments case is a brief further application of these principles to later costs. 

Alliance Developments Pty Ltd v Arbab & Anor [2019] VSC 832. 

The facts were –

·   The plaintiff (Alliance) initially had three shareholders including Mr Abela (Abela) and the first defendant Mr Arbab (Arbab) they being the the sole directors.  

·   In 2013 Alliance purchased and became registered proprietor of land at California Gully with the intention of subdividing it and erecting homes on it.  Arbab claimed he contributed funds to the purchase.

·  In 2014 Alliance, on the nomination of the purchaser Abela, became registered proprietor of land at Laverton North.

·     By August 2015 Arbab was no longer a director of Alliance and his shareholding had been reduced from 50% to 8%.  He disputed this, claiming he did not agree to it. 

·    Arbab retained a firm (“the firm”) with a sole principal (“the solicitor”) for advice.  The firm sought advice from counsel.  In October 2015 counsel advised on the dispute concerning the company, and advised that, if, as to which counsel stated he had not been instructed, the funds supplied by Arbab bore a certain complexion that it should lodge a caveat over the California Gully property.  Counsel did not refer to the Laverton North property.

·  In 2015 Arbab commenced proceedings under the Corporations Act which were subsequently amended. 

·   In March 2016 the firm sent a letter of demand to the third shareholder and his company concerning a partnership or profit sharing dispute. 

·      Later in 2016 the solicitor lodged a caveat over the Laverton North property on behalf of Arbab.  The estate or interest claimed was a freehold estate and the prohibition was absolute.  The ground of the claim was “Implied, Resulting, Constructive Trust”.

·   In March 2018 the solicitor lodged a caveat over the California Gully property on behalf of Arbab.  The estate or interest claimed was a freehold estate and the prohibition was absolute. The ground relied upon was: “Registered proprietor(s), being entitled to possession of the Certificate of Title for the land and to prevent improper dealing”.

·   Later in 2018 on the application of Alliance the Registrar gave a notice under the Transfer of Land Act s. 89A(1) that both caveats would lapse unless the application was abandoned or notice was given to the Registrar that proceedings were on foot to substantiate the claim of the caveator.  In response the firm gave notice that such proceedings were on foot.  In particular: the firm advised that the Corporations Act proceeding was on foot and was set down for trial; the solicitor certified in substance that she had retained the evidence supporting the caveats and had taken reasonable steps to ensure that they were correct; the letter attached a notice signed by the solicitor falsely to the effect that proceedings were on foot in a court of competent jurisdiction to substantiate Arbab’s claims.  The Registrar accordingly took no further action. 

·    On 23 August 2019 Alliance’s solicitors wrote to the firm stating that Arbab did not have a caveatable interest, that application would be made under the TLA s. 90(3) unless the caveats were withdrawn, that, referring to the Supreme Court decisions, they had instructions that may give rise to Arbab’s advisers being liable, and that they were concerned at the certification to the Registrar and the solicitor’s failure to produce any documentation substantiating the caveatable interests claimed.  This letter drew a combatative response from the solicitor on 25 August. 

·    In September Alliance commenced a proceeding seeking relief under s. 90(3).  The necessary court documents were served on Arbab and on the firm.  Between 16 and 30 September:

o   the solicitor said she did not have instructions to accept service and incorrectly disputed that there had been valid service on the Arbab (served at the address stated in the caveat);

o   the solicitor said that both she and client were overseas and she could not get instructions and did not act for the caveator;

o     the solicitor emailed the Court advising that she did not have instructions to act in the proceeding due to an unidentified potential conflict of interest;

o   on 25 September another solicitor appeared in court as agent for the caveator, directions were given including for filing of material by Arbab, and the proceeding was adjourned with the caveator being ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the adjournment on an indemnity basis;

o    on 26 September the solicitor emailed the plaintiff’s solicitors confirming that she did not hold instructions but attaching an email from the caveator stating in substance that he would agree to removal of the caveats for particular reasons with costs, and that for medical reasons he had been unable to deal with the application;

o   on 30 September the solicitor advised the plaintiff’s solicitors that the caveator had not so agreed until 25 September. 

·      On 3 October the caveator emailed the Court and the plaintiff’s solicitors, agreeing to pay the costs of the plaintiff on an indemnity basis, but not to their amount without further information.  On that day, no material having been filed by the caveator who also did not appear, Ginnane J. ordered removal of the caveats and required that any application for indemnity costs be by summons.

The plaintiff issued such a summons seeking indemnity costs against caveator, the firm and the solicitor under s. 24(1) of the Supreme Court Act, which gave the Court a general discretion as to costs, and under r. 63.23(1) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, which gave the Court power to make a ‘wasted costs order’ against the solicitor of a party to litigation.   The evidence included that Alliance had entered into a contract to purchase another property (as to which the evidence was conflicting).  Arbab elected to waive legal professional privilege and the solicitor deposed to her instructions.

Garde J held that Alliance’s costs up to and including 3 October 2019 were payable on an indemnity basis jointly and severally by the caveator and the solicitor on the following grounds – 

1.  The estate or interest claimed in a caveat, its ground, and the nature of the prohi­bition were of prime importance.  Examples of inaccuracies in caveats from previous cases were: “an interest as chargee” based on an implied, resulting or constructive trust; an “[e]quitable interest as a 50% shareholder of the property pursuant to a trust Deed” – a shareholder has no caveatable interest in land belonging to a company; a claim by an unregistered mortgagee to an absolute prohibition on dealings which stultified the exercise of a power of sale by a registered mortgagee.  By contrast, as illustrated in in Lawrence & Hansen Group Pty Ltd v Young [2017] VSCA 172, where only one of two registered proprietors gave a charge, a claim for absolute prohibition was sufficiently clear and should be construed as limited to the interest of the charging joint proprietor. [16]-[20], [56], Footnote 15

2.   The purposes of requiring the caveator to specify the estate or interest claimed were to enable: the registered proprietor to ascertain the claim to be met; the Registrar to determine whether a dealing lodged for registration was inconsistent with that claimed; the Registrar to determine whether a caveator’s notice was of a proceeding to substantiate the interest claimed and satisfied s. 89A(3)(b). [21]-[22] 

3.   However, if a caveator had more or different rights in land than those claimed, the caveator could lodge another caveat claiming the additional interests. [23]

4.   As to the claim in the Laverton North caveat of a freehold estate on the ground of a trust: the ground was expressed generally without referring to any agreement or basis, nor descending into particulars or explanation of how the alleged trust or freehold interest arose (there were three kinds of freehold estates – most commonly a fee simple, but also a fee tail and a life estate). [25], Footnote 15

5.  The claim made in the California Gully caveat was misconceived and nonsensical. As Alliance had been its registered proprietor since 2017 the ground of claim was suitable only for a registered proprietor who sought to receive notification from the Registrar of the lodgement of a dealing affecting the land.   Whatever Arbab’s claim – whether pursuant to any agreement or financial contribution or otherwise – it was not referred to in the caveat. [26]-[29], [65]-[68]

6.  The notice given by the solicitor to the Registrar was wrong and misleading.  The Corporations Act proceeding sought orders related to the shareholdings not to substantiate the estate or interest claimed in the caveats. [33]-[34]

7.   The lodging of a caveat was a serious business. His Honour set out why this was so and what the proper purpose of lodging a caveat was, referringto Goldstraw v Goldstraw [2002] VSC 491; Piroshenko v Grojsman & Ors (2010) 27 VR 489; Love v Kempton [2010] VSC 254; Campbell v Pastras & Anor [2015] VSC 162. [56]-[59].

8.   After referring to the criteria in Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v Inter­national Produce Merchants Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 397 and Ugly Tribe Company Pty Ltd v Sikola & Ors [2001] VSC 189, Arbab was ordered to pay indemnity costs because 

(a)  he agreed to pay costs on 25 September 2019 and indemnity costs on 3 October 2019, disputing only the final amount;

(b)  the caveats were lodged and maintained on his instructions;

(c)  the caveats were misconceived and without merit;

(d)  the caveats were lodged and relied on without regard for known facts and clearly established law;

(e)  the caveats were intended as a bargaining chip in the Corporations proceeding; and

(f) it would be unfair to the other shareholders if Alliance bore the difference between an indemnity costs and a standard costs order. [60]-[73]

9.  The Court’s power under r 63.23 reflected the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to supervise its own affairs. The inherent jurisdiction required a serious dereliction of duty or gross negligence, but this was unnecessary under r 63.23.  Under r 63.23, a solicitor’s negligence or failure to act with reasonable competence may justify a personal costs order.  His Honour set out matters found relevant by previous judges in the exercise of the wasted costs jurisdiction in  Dura (Australia) Constructions Pty Ltd v Hue Boutique Living Pty Ltd (No 5) [2014] VSC 400; (2014) 48 VR 1;  Apollo 169 Management Pty Ltd v Pinefield Nominees Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] VSC; Sekhon & Anor v Chandyoke & Anor [2018] VSC 327 (Blog 17); McKewins Hairdressing and Beauty Supplies Pty Ltd (in liq) v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and Anor (2000) 74 ALJR 1000; Pearl Lingerie Australia Pty Ltd v TGY Pty Ltd; Pearl Lingerie Australia Pty Ltd v John Giarratana Pearl Lingerie [2012] VSC 451; Gatto Corporate Solutions Pty Ltd v Mountney [2016] VSC 752; and White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Flower & Hart (a firm) (1988) 156 ALR 169.  [75]-[84]

10.The firm had a paramount duty to the Court and in the administration of justice to act honestly in relation to the dispute. These duties included a duty on the factual and legal material available not to make a claim or respond to a claim in a civil proceeding without a proper basis.  The firm was required not to engage in misleading or deceptive conduct or conduct likely to mislead or deceive. [86]-[87]

11. Assuming the standard laid down by Dixon J. in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 applied, his Honour was satisfied to a comfortable level of satisfaction on the balance of probabilities that the firm (and solicitor) failed to act with reasonable competence and was negligent and in breach of duties to the Court in:

(a)  the drafting of the caveats;

(b)  the s 89A application;

(c)  the misrepresentations to the Registrar;

(d)  the refusal to withdraw the caveats to avoid the proceeding;

(e)  the failure to acknowledge that the caveats were unsustainable; and

(f)   the failure to brief counsel with the relevant facts, or if in doubt, obtain counsel’s opinion on whether the caveats were maintainable. [88]-[90]

In Alliance Developments Pty Ltd v Arbab & Ors (No 2) [2020] VSC 37 Garde J held that the plaintiff’s costs after 3 October 2019 were payable on an indemnity basis jointly and severally by the caveator and the solicitor for similar reasons to the previous costs order, including that the solicitor had acted contrary to the overarching principles set out in the Civil Procedure Act, including the obligation to act honestly, the requirement to have a proper basis for a civil claim, and the obligation not to mislead or deceive.

Philip H. Barton

Owen Dixon Chambers West

5 May 2020