Month: October 2022

Blog 61. Caveator narrowly escapes blizzard.

Reindel & Ors v Confreight Pty Ltd & Ors (No 1) [2022] VSC 163, Daly AsJ (4 April 2022).

This case is interesting for several reasons.  First, Daly AsJ discusses the subtle difference between the competing tests of ‘prima facie case’ or ‘serious question to be tried’ for a caveator to hold a sufficient interest in land in proceedings under the Transfer of Land Act s. 90(3).  Her Honour comes down on the side of the former.  (However it is difficult to think of any case in which a court held that a caveator satisfied one and not the other test).    Second, her Honour conducts a long survey of the authorities on creation of equitable charges.  Third, her Honour summarises principles of contractual interpretation.  The facts were –

  • A company developed land including for 69 residential units.  Reindel and a company of which he was director (Blizzard Winds) were the registered proprietors of one and four units respectively.  Another company (ABPC) was controlled by Baker.
  • Reindel and Baker had a long, complicated and contentious financial association culminating in a written agreement alleged by Baker and denied by Reindel to have been made between ABPC and Reindel on 11 September 2020 (2020 facility agreement).  Although Reindel’s electronic signature appeared on this document he denied signing it, alleging that Baker had affixed it without his authority.  The agreement recited that the Lender (ABPC) had agreed to provide the Borrower (Reindel) with a “secured term loan facility” of $498,956.  It defined: “Finance Document” as “this agreement, the Security Document and any other document designated as such by the Lender and the Borrower”; “Security” as “any mortgage, charge (whether fixed or floating, legal or equitable) … or other security interest securing any obligation of any person or any other agreement or arrangement having a similar effect”; and “Security Document” as ”the right to take an assignment or a legal charge in the agreed form, executed or to be executed by the Borrower or by (sic)”.  It included –

“8.1 The Borrower confirms the Security outlined in schedule A (or once entered into, will create): (a) valid, legally binding and enforceable Security for the obligations expressed to be secured by it; and (b) subject to registration, perfected Security over the assets expressed to be subject to security in it.

8.2 The security will be held by the appointed representative in favour of the Lender, until the loan has been repaid in full

8.3 It is agreed the Lender has the priority and ranking expressed to be created in the Security Document and ranking ahead of all (if any) Security and rights of third parties except those preferred by law”

Schedule A provided under the heading “Security”:

“The apartments listed below are registered in the name of the Borrower and/or Blizzard Winds Pty Ltd … It is therefore agreed that in the event of default, the Lender can immediately register a secured charge against each or any of the following apartments.  To the maximum value of the capitalized loan amount plus accrued interest Lot 203, 204, and 205 James Street Windsor 3181 Lot 502 and G12 White Stret (sic) Windsor 3181”

  • Baker alleged that Reindel owed $563,966.77 under this agreement. A proceeding was on foot in which each claimed that the other person, or a company controlled by the other person, owed the claimant money.  Reindel admitted receiving $498,956 from ABPC, but said that this was in reduction of a previous debt owed by Baker.
  • ABPC had not registered any charge. It caveated over the above five units as chargee under the 2020 facility agreement.  Reindel applied under the Transfer of Land Act s. 90(3) to remove those caveats.

Daly AsJ upheld the caveat over Reindel’s unit and removed the caveats over those of Blizzard Winds –

  1. The caveator must demonstrate a prima facie case, ie a probability of being found to have the asserted legal or equitable rights or interest in the land. There must be a sufficient likelihood of success to justify the maintenance of the caveat and the preservation of the status quo pending trial.  The ‘prima facie case’ test was preferable to the ‘serious question to be tried’ test.  The difference between the tests was one of degree, yet material, recognising the potentially adverse consequences to a registered proprietor of constraint from dealing with the property in circumstances where a caveator was generally not required to provide an undertaking for damages. [20]-[22]
  2. The question whether Reindel signed or authorised the signing of the agreement and the characterisation of the payments to him were matters for trial. [24], [75]
  3. The 2020 facility agreement was to be construed: with reference to what a reasonable business person with knowledge of the context and purpose of the transaction would have understood those terms to mean (Reindel and Baker were experienced businessmen); and avoiding commercial absurdity and commercial inconvenience as far as the language of the agreement allowed. Further, a court would endeavour to enforce rather than destroy a bargain, unless the agreement’s terms were so vague and confusing as to render ascertainment of the parties’ common intention impossible. [46]-[48]
  4. Courts would, consistent with the principles governing the construction of commercial contracts, adopt a liberal approach to the construction of instruments such as the 2020 facility agreement, and would generally strive to give effect to a clause purporting to confer a security interest in property, even if ambiguously or inelegantly expressed. [49]
  5. The 2020 facility agreement evidenced a common intention by Reindel and ABPC that any sums advanced pursuant to it were secured on the units referred to in Schedule A upon default by Reindel, and that upon default ABPC would be entitled to register a “charge” over the units. There was at least a prima facie case of an immediate intention to create an equitable charge because –
    1. The reference in the recitals to the provision of a “secured term loan facility” evidenced the purpose of the transaction and guided its construction.
    2. “Security” was defined expansively and consistently with what someone engaged in property development would understand a security to be.
    3. The definition of “Security Document” referred to an instrument to give effect to the agreement between the parties, rather than of itself creating a proprietary interest.
    4. Although the language of cl. 8.1 was clumsy, there was a prima facie case that, when read with Schedule A, the parties intended the “Security” referred to in Schedule A to be the borrower’s then unencumbered interest in the units enumerated in Schedule A. The reference to a “secured charge” being registrable upon default was merely a machinery provision in aid of enforcement in the event of default, and not an agreement to provide future security requiring further consideration.
    5. The creation of any charge over the units was not dependent on execution of a further document capable of registration. Because Part IV of the Transfer of Land Act only provided for registration of a charge securing payment of an annuity nothing further (notwithstanding what the agreement appeared to contemplate) could be done to register the charge.
    6. The entitlement to an equitable charge arose on default, not at the time of entry into the agreement. The relevant clause was “apt to create an equitable charge”.
    7. The units were sufficiently identified without reference to particulars of title.
    8. The definitions of “Security Document” and “Finance Document” did not detract from the conclusion that the agreement conferred an immediate equitable interest in the units on ABPC, because: the definition of “Security Document” was incomplete and unintelligible in attempting to equate a document with a proprietary interest; the term “Security Document” was not referred to in Schedule A; while the term “Security Document” was referred to in cl. 8.3, that clause was not concerned with the existence or creation of ABPC’s security interest but with its priority; and the term “Finance Document” was not referred to in cl. 8.1 or Schedule A, but only in other not presently relevant clauses. [59]-[63], [67], [68], [71]-[73]
  6. Accordingly the caveator had a caveatable interest in Reindel’s unit. However, notwithstanding that Blizzard Winds’ units were enumerated in Schedule A, even if Reindel entered the agreement he did not do so on behalf of Blizzard Winds. Accordingly the caveator had no caveatable interest in its units. [26], [59], [74], [75]
  7. The balance of convenience favoured maintenance of the caveat over Reindel’s unit. On the one hand there was evidence of an executed agreement and of funds advanced without repayment, a counterclaim advancing ABPC’s claims was well underway, and the caveat assisted ABPC in giving notice of its claim to other claimants.  On the other hand there was no evidence that Reindel needed to sell or encumber his unit. [75]

Philip H. Barton
Owen Dixon Chambers West
Friday, October 28, 2022

Blog 60. De facto partner v former wife – No constructive trust.

Seaborne v Lester & Anor [2022] VSC 52, Irving AsJ (17 February 2022)

The facts were –

  • Andrew Lester (Lester) and the first defendant were divorced. In 2019 the Family Court made final property orders contemplating that he would pay her over $2 m.
  • Lester failed to comply with these orders and enforcement proceedings ensued resulting in consent orders in June 2020 including that: he would pay her $750,000 within 90 days and $313,000 within 90 days thereafter; and contemporaneously with the first payment she would transfer her interest in a Unit in Richmond to him and he would discharge the mortgage over it.
  • She alleged that when the parties were negotiating the June 2020 orders he informed her: that he proposed to obtain a loan to enable the first payment; and that just before agreement was reached he told her that he could not obtain a loan and that he intended to transfer the Unit to his de facto partner the plaintiff so that the plaintiff could obtain a loan on security of the Unit.
  • The first defendant also alleged that her consent to the June orders was induced by the plaintiff’s representation that if she so consented the plaintiff would on security of the Unit obtain a loan to be applied by Lester to satisfy the June orders.
  • Lester paid the first defendant the $750,000 required. The plaintiff deposed that Lester informed her that he had done this.  The first defendant transferred her interest in the Unit to Lester.
  • Subsequently, on 11 September 2020, the plaintiff purchased the Unit from Lester for approximately $980,000 and became registered proprietor.
  • In July 2021 the first defendant caveated over the Unit on the grounds of implied, resulting or constructive trust. The plaintiff applied for an order under the Transfer of Land Act s. 90(3) that the caveat be removed.
  • At the hearing the court permitted the caveator to rely on, but gave little weight to, her unsworn affidavit apparently asserting that: Lester transferred the Unit to the plaintiff to place it beyond the reach of his creditors including the caveator; Lester had an interest in the Unit pursuant to a trust by virtue of his de facto relationship with the plaintiff and of his significant contributions to the Unit; the Unit had been transferred to the plaintiff for an undervalue and so she held it or part thereof on trust for Lester; and in consenting to the June 2020 orders the first defendant relied on the plaintiff’s representation that the plaintiff would do everything she could to ‘get you everything you’re owed’.
  • It appeared that the first defendant claimed that Lester owed her $200,000.

Irving AsJ held –

  1. There was no serious question to be tried of the trust alleged. At its highest, the first defendant had asserted a debt of $200,000 owed by Lester under the 2020 orders.  The assertion that the plaintiff held an interest in the Unit on trust for Lester, inferred from the relationship between the plaintiff and Lester and the purchase price, was unsubstantiated.   Even assuming the plaintiff held an interest on trust for Lester this would not give the first defendant an interest in the Unit. [48]-[50], [53]
  2. There was no serious question to be tried that the first defendant had an interest in the Unit via a remedial constructive trust based on the first defendant’s (unsubstantiated) historical financial and non-financial contributions to the property, she having transferred her interest in the Unit to Lester on the payment of $750,000. [51], [53]
  3. The balance of convenience favoured removal of the caveat. The claim for $200,000 could be met by an award of damages, was modest when compared with the value of the Unit, and Lester was not the registered proprietor. [54]-[55]

Philip H. Barton

          Owen Dixon Chambers West

        Tuesday, October 18, 2022

Blog 59. Mother and Son.

Fazal v Fazal [2022] VSC 165, Gorton J. (4 April 2022).

Fazal v Madappilly [2022] VSC 227, Gorton J. (9 May 2022).

These cases concern the same piece of land.  The first case deals with the uncommon points of an application under the Transfer of Land Act s. 90(3) being brought by Summons in an existing proceeding, rather than by Originating Motion and Summons, and with abuse of process.  The second case is more routine, there being a dubious caveatable interest but the balance of convenience favouring removal of the caveat, nonetheless raising two interesting points not explicitly touched on by Gorton J.  First, the solicitors lodging the caveat could not decline to accept service: Transfer of Land Act ss. 89(4) and 113(3) (Blog 49).  Second, in weighing the balance of convenience his Honour could have considered whether, as there was also a purchaser, the caveator was able to give the undertaking as to damages (Blog 56).

Fazal v Fazal [2022] VSC 165, Gorton J. (4 April 2022).

The facts were –

  • The plaintiff was the mother of the defendant.
  • In August 2018 the son purchased a property for $650,000 after obtaining a bank loan secured by a mortgage guaranteed by his mother. Work started to construct townhouses on the property.
  • Loan repayments fell into default, the bank took steps to enforce the mortgage, and with its agreement the son in November 2021 entered into a contract for sale for $865,000, with a 10% deposit that was paid, with settlement due on 21 January 2022.
  • On 17 January 2022 the mother lodged a caveat. The son applied for its removal under s. 90(3) of the Transfer of Land Act.  The mother produced a 2018 declaration of trust to the court which she alleged, and he denied, was signed by him.
  • On 17 February after an opposed hearing a judge ordered removal of the caveat.
  • On 21 February the mother commenced a proceeding seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the proceeds of the sale were held on trust for her and equitable compensation.  She made an interlocutory application to restrain the distribution of the proceeds of sale.  The selling agent deposed that the value of the property was $850,000 – $900,000 and that the sale was for market value.   The mother produced a valuation that the underlying unencumbered value of the property was $760,000 but that it was worth $1 m. with the planning permit and settlement of sale of three dwellings before the end of 2022.   She also produced an affidavit in which the deponent swore that he would lend money to her and otherwise assist her completing the development, and lend money to her ‘to repay any outstanding home loans’.
  • The hearing of the interlocutory application on 25 February (the caveat not yet being removed) expanded from one seeking restraint of distribution of the proceeds of sale to one seeking restraint of the sale until trial. The judge however only ordered that the net proceeds of sale to be held in the son’s solicitor’s trust account until trial or further order.
  • On 27 February the mother lodged another caveat asserting the same interest as the previous one. The son made a further application under s. 90(3), by Summons in the proceeding commenced by his mother.

The mother among other things: stated that the property was hers and that she intended to appeal against the decision of 17 February; relied on material which had been before the court on 25 February; and referred to her recent proposal to the bank to repay the arrears, finish the development, and sell the property, not yet eliciting the bank’s substantive response.

Gorton J. held –

  1. Although an application under s. 90(3) was normally made by Originating Motion and Summons it could be made by Summons in an existing proceeding. The filing of the Summons amounted to the bringing of ‘proceedings in a court against the caveator for the removal of the caveat’ as those words in s. 90(3) were to be understood.  This outcome was supported by s. 8(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2010.  It was significant that the Summons was brought in a proceeding between the two relevant parties relating to their rights. [5]
  2. A second interlocutory application for the same relief was an abuse of process if it would be unjustifiably oppressive to the other party, or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Ordinarily, an abuse of process was associated with commencement of a proceeding or application, rather than its defence.  However although an application under s. 90(3) was not commenced by the caveator, the caveator was treated as if the caveator were the moving party seeking an interlocutory injunction.  Accordingly, in substance, it was the caveator who was potentially abusing the process of the court by supporting a second caveat identical to a removed caveat.  The maintenance of this caveat was an abuse of process. [13]-[15]

Fazal v Madappilly [2022] VSC 227, Gorton J. (9 May 2022).

Another caveat was lodged on 13 April 2022, ie nine days after the previous decision, by the first defendant Madappilly claiming a freehold estate based on an agreement with the son dated 5 August 2020.  Further –

  • On lodgment of the caveat Madappilly’s solicitors wrote to the son’s solicitors stating their instructions that the son was attempting to sell the property in breach of the Constructive Trust Agreement and Construction Contract both dated 5 August 2020, under which agreements approximately $300,000 was owed to Madappilly.
  • They provided copies of these documents. The ‘Construction Contract’ was undated and purportedly signed on 5 August 2020.  It was a contract between the son, one of two other alleged joint venturers (see further below), and a company associated with Madappilly, in which the son and one of the other parties declared that they intended to enter a contract to build townhouses on the property and appointed the company as building supervisor.  It provided that the company would be paid a deposit of $300,000 upon execution of the agreement, and that it could charge for services at an hourly rate left blank.  It then stated that the son and the joint venturer would ‘permit’ the company ‘to have equitable and beneficial interest in the land, pending making the deposit of $300,000’ and would when requested transfer the land “to [the company] to [the company’s] interest”.
  • In the ‘Constructive Trust Agreement’, dated and purportedly signed on 5 August 2020, the son declared that he intended to enter into a contract to purchase the property and that he confirmed that he held Madappilly’s interest in the property and/or benefits accrued or to accrue in respect of that interest upon trust for Madappilly absolutely subject to the terms and conditions set out in this deed. Madappilly’s interest was defined to mean ‘full interest in the… Property as tenants-in-common’.
  • The son’s solicitors stated that he denied having signed these documents and that ‘[t]he builder who actually was doing the construction on the property is not aware of your client’.
  • The son sought an order under the s. 90(3) for removal of the caveat. Madappilly’s solicitors advised that they were not instructed to accept service and did not hold instructions to continue to act.
  • Madappilly, who described himself as building supervisor, deposed that –
    • In around mid-2019 he entered into an oral joint venture agreement with the son and two others; and the son undertook and represented to them that the son would pay the mortgage and other outgoings, would provide $150,000 towards the completion of the joint-venture, and that when the development was completed it would be sold;
    • In reliance on those promises, he and the other two people jointly invested ‘around $500,000’ in the joint-venture in work and materials, and implicitly that the four persons were to share the net profits of sale.
  • The son identified the builder he had dealt with, deposed that he did not know who Madappilly was, and denied entering any joint venture agreement.
  • Madappilly produced to the court a valuation that the property was in its current state worth approximately $1 m. and that if $209,500 was spent completing the project the property could be sold for $1.635 m.
  • The net sale proceeds were under $140,000.

Gorton J. held –

  1. The interest asserted by the caveator in his affidavit sat uneasily with any interest based on the agreements purportedly signed on 5 August 2020. The arrangements contained in the Construction Contract were entirely inconsistent with the affidavit evidence and at best gave a caveatable interest to the company not Madappilly.  The Constructive Trust Agreement was unusually worded, and read strictly did not give Madappilly an equitable interest but confirmed that the son held Madappilly’s interest on trust for Madappilly.  It was difficult to reconcile the two documents.  Madappilly could not explain caveating asserting an interest based on an agreement reached on 5 August 2020 but now relying on an oral joint venture arrangement entered into the previous year.  Turning to Madappilly’s evidence: he did not identify to what extent he contributed to the ‘around $500,000’, and so, even if his evidence was accepted did not establish the extent of his beneficial interest; and he produced no documents supporting provision of work and materials.  Because of the inconsistency between what had been advanced by his solicitors and what was now advanced in court there was   reason to doubt his version of events. [8]-[10], [15]-[17]
  2. The court inferred that Madappilly either through his previous solicitors or now advanced arrangements known by him to be incorrect. However, in light of the affidavit material filed there was an issue to be tried that Madappilly had an equitable interest in the property, albeit one difficult to establish. [5], [17]
  3. The balance of convenience favoured removal of the caveat ([25]) –
    1. The alleged sum required to complete the project was said to be pursuant to the unproduced Building Contract and was unclear whether inclusive of landscaping expenses. [18]
    2. It the contract of sale was completed the son could discharge the mortgage and stop interest running. [18], [24]
    3. The contract of sale was on its face unimpeachable (note that his Honour states that the contract price was $850,000, but this seems to be a slip). [19]
    4. The property was not the residence of either party and if the caveat was removed and the sale completed Madappilly would retain a cause of action against the son for damages. [20]
    5. There was no evidence that the purchaser was other than bona fide for value without notice of the caveator’s alleged interest, the contract of sale being apparently specifically enforceable giving the purchaser an equitable interest and giving a claim for damages against the son if the sale did not proceed. Madappilly had not offered to indemnify the purchaser or the son against any liability in damages if the caveat remained.  In one sense, the same issues arose as in a priority dispute between Madappilly and the purchaser, it being relevant that Madappilly had not caveated until after the contract of sale. [19], [22], [23]
    6. There was no evidence that Madappilly or the other alleged joint venturers had the means to complete the development. [21]

       Philip H. Barton

       Owen Dixon Chambers West

       Friday, October 13, 2022