Category: Balance of convenience to permit refinancing or transfer

Blog 74. Leave to appeal against Blog 65 refused

Dolan v Dolan [2023] VSCA 136, Court of Appeal.

In this case the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal from the decision of Ierodiaconou AsJ ([2022] VSC 543) the subject of Blog 65.   The Court of Appeal decision is particularly helpful because the court summarises a number of basic caveat litigation points arising under the TLA s. 90(3), namely:

  1. An application under s. 90(3) is interlocutory in nature, requiring application of the two-stage test of serious question to be tried and balance of convenience, not ordinarily requiring final determination of disputed factual issues or claims, and not giving rise to an issue estoppel or res judicata (although an application under s. 90(3) may amount to an abuse of process).
  2. Where an arguable case is established the caveator is generally required to commence a proceeding with a Writ and pleadings.
  3. As to admissibility of evidence.
  4. That an order removing a caveat to permit sale, with part of the sale proceeds being held on trust pending final determination of the dispute, may be appropriate where the caveator was not in possession or where the claimed interest conferred no possessory right, but may be inappropriate where the claimed interest, of which there was a serious question to be tried, conferred possessory rights or represented the whole or a substantial proportion of the beneficial proprietary interest.

It is helpful first to set out the original decision, commencing with the facts particularly relevant to the appeal –

  • In about 1998 the first defendant (Christine) and other persons purchased land at Lorne (the parent title) for $105,000 with Christine being registered as to a half interest.   They agreed to subdivide it into two blocks, with her taking one.  She deposed that she contributed $52,500 towards the purchase.  The plaintiff (Shannan), who was Christine’s daughter, deposed that she (Shannan) contributed $20,000 towards the purchase.
  • Due to her age and income Christine could not obtain a loan to fund construction of a house.   However, a Bendigo Bank employee advised that if she transferred her interest in the parent title to Shannan an acceptable loan could be secured in Shannan’s name.  Christine deposed that Shannan accepted her proposal to make this transfer so that Shannan could obtain a loan on Christine’s behalf, but that both before and after subdivision she (Christine) would continue as beneficial owner, and that Shannan also accepted other proposed terms relating to the transfer.  Shannan denied accepting this proposal.
  • In 2001 Christine transferred her moiety in the parent title to Shannan, the consideration stated in the Transfer being as “An Agreement to Transfer”.   Following subdivision, one block (the property) was transferred to Shannan, the consideration in that Transfer being stated as “In pursuance of an Agreement between the Transferors for partition of the said land …”, and Shannan in 2003 became registered proprietor of this block.  The bank established a loan account in Shannan’s name with an overdraft limit of $140,000 secured by a mortgage.
  • Christine deposed that the costs for acquisition of the parent title and construction and fit‑out of the house were funded primarily from her personal resources and from the loan account, Shannan only contributing about 7% of overall build costs.   Christine also deposed to making mortgage repayments and that she paid all outgoings including council rates, home insurance, and for maintenance and improvement.  Shannan deposed that the overall build costs were largely drawn down from the loan account, that from 2004 to 2006 she made loan payments, and that Christine did not use her personal resources to fund overall build costs.
  • Upon completion of the house in 2003/2004 Christine, Shannan, and another family member took up residence.  Shannan left in 2006.  In 2021 Christine caveated on the ground of ‘implied, resulting or constructive trust’.  Shannan applied under the Transfer of Land Act s. 90(3) for removal of the caveat.

Ierodiaconou AsJ dismissed the application, holding –

  1. There was a serious question to be tried that Christine was the beneficiary of a common intention constructive trust (she alleged as to 93% of the equitable title). This was supported by: her deposing to the required common intention or agreement; reference to an agreement in the Transfer (her Honour appears to state in the Transfer to Shannan of the subdivided block, but quaere this is a slip for the Transfer to Shannan from Christine); and Christine’s contribution to loan repayments.  Moreover, it appeared to be common ground that Christine contributed most of the purchase price of the parent title and that for many years she made payments into the mortgage loan account and resided on the property.
  2. There was a serious question to be tried that Christine was the beneficiary of a resulting trust (she alleged as to 65% of the equitable title) arising from her contributions to the purchase price of the parent title and to construction and fit-out.
  3. The balance of convenience favoured maintenance of the caveat because of: Christine’s long residence; her age being elderly; evidence of her investing her life savings into the property; the fact that Shannan proposed to sell the property with vacant possession with only $20,000 from the net proceeds being distributed to Christine pending resolution of the dispute; Christine’s claim of a substantial interest in the property; and Christine’s inability to buy another property or rent one in Lorne.  Any hardship for Shannan could be met by Christine’s undertaking to maintain mortgage and property expense payments, which would maintain the status quo of many years, and Christine being required within 7 days to commence a proceeding to establish her interest in the property.

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, holding –

  1. The decision at first instance was discretionary and to impugn it the applicant must establish an error of a kind explained in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499. [83]
  2. The proposed ground of appeal that the Associate Judge had conducted a “trial” of the Originating Motion (without the applicant being aware of it) and had not just heard the Summons, whereby the final orders created an issue estoppel or res judicata that Christine had a caveatable interest, was misguided and a distraction. The true issue was that the nature of the order made, ie to refuse to order removal of the caveat, reflected in the conclusion in the order dismissing the summons, was interlocutory in nature, in the sense that it did not finally determine any rights in the property.  It was interlocutory because the relief sought was under the Transfer of Land Act s. 90(3) requiring the caveator to establish a serious question to be tried of an estate or interest in the land and that the balance of convenience favoured the maintenance of the caveat until trial.   An application for removal of a caveat did not ordinarily present an occasion for the final determination of disputed factual issues or claims.  Not only was it usual for an application under s. 90(3) to be by Summons or Originating Motion, and for it to be determined by the two-stage test, but where an arguable case was established the caveator was generally required to commence a proceeding to have the claim to an interest in the land determined in a properly constituted suit with a Writ and pleadings.  An Originating Motion was ill-suited to such a dispute and there may be no utility in keeping it on foot. [47]-[55]
  3. The Associate Judge had applied these principles. She had not determined whether the applicant had any equitable interest in the property, but done no more than dismiss the Summons.  No issue estoppel or res judicata [56], [57], [60], [61]
  4. However, in the absence of a relevant change in circumstances, an application to remove the caveat may be an abuse of process. [62]
  5. The submission that the Associate Judge was not entitled to rely on matters stated in a draft Statement of Claim exhibited to and repeated in a paragraph of an affidavit, and in particular the pleading of an agreement between Christine and Shannan, was rejected. The fact that a paragraph in an affidavit was in the same form as a pleading was inconsequential.  Admissibility of the paragraph was determined by reference to the Evidence Act 2008.  Although the form of the paragraph was open to the criticism that it was conclusionary it was admissible because the evidence was relevant and on its face came from the deponent’s personal knowledge.  The evidence was capable of reasonably bearing upon whether there was a triable issue of an agreement or understanding reflecting a common intention as to the beneficial ownership of the property.  The other evidence of an agreement included the change in title, the payment by Christine of part of the purchase price of the parent title and construction costs, and the fact that she continued to occupy the property without paying rent.  In any event, counsel had conceded before the Associate Judge that he was ‘not going to argue that there isn’t a prima facie case here in relation to the caveat’. [65], [71]-[75]
  6. The proposed ground of appeal that the Associate Justice should have determined that at best Christine was entitled to a lesser equitable remedy, ie an order requiring Shannan to hold some of the sale proceeds on trust pending final determination of the dispute, was not established. The Associate Justice was correct in concluding that Christine had raised a serious question to be tried that she held a beneficial interest in the property.  As to the balance of convenience, the caveat itself did not confer any rights on Christine to occupy the property for the purpose of the caveat nor (although likely to affect the ability to sell and price) prevent sale. [42], [84]-[89]
  7. In considering whether the balance of convenience favoured the retention of the caveat, it was necessary to consider the nature of the claimed interest and what the caveat was designed to protect. In cases where the caveator was not in possession or where the claimed interest conferred no possessory right, the claimed proprietary interest may be adequately protected by removing the caveat, allowing the property to be sold and, by orders or undertakings, for the proceeds or part of them to be secured until the respective interests in the property can be determined.  Conversely, where the claimed interest conferred possessory rights or represents the whole or a substantial proportion of the beneficial proprietary interest, it may be appropriate to maintain the caveat and so not alter the registered title pending trial.   In this context two points required examination –
    1. Did the interest claimed by Christine give her a possessory right to the property? On her primary case, she claimed to own 93% of the beneficial interest based on a common intention constructive trust. She had also been in possession since the construction of the house.  In those circumstances it was arguable that the equitable interest would follow the legal interest and give her a right to possession. Alternatively, establishment of her right to equitable relief may arguably also found an order restraining Shannan from evicting her.
    2. In her draft pleading and in her submissions at first instance Christine accepted that the property should be sold but only after determination of the respective equitable interests. Shannan’s submission that, in circumstances where both parties sought sale and distribution of proceeds, it was (necessarily) wrong for the caveat to remain was invalid.  It was open to the Associate Judge to conclude that the caveat should not be removed before the determination of equitable interests because the practical effect this would be a sale and transfer of title with the real risk of an order for possession against Christine.  Christine’s ability to secure alternative accommodation was heavily dependent on her knowing the extent of, and being able to realise, any interest she may have in the property, accordingly the status quo plainly favoured retention of the caveat.  And if Christine was successful on her primary claim and Shannan has no more than a 7% beneficial interest Shannan’s interest may possibly be satisfied without sale.  [90]-[93], [96]-[99]
  2. The Associate Judge was alive to possible prejudice to Shannan from maintenance of the caveat including exposure to mortgage repayments. She correctly decided that the undertakings proffered by Christine to pay certain amounts were adequate to meet any prejudice.  An application to lead fresh evidence to the effect that the mortgage had been in arrears was refused. [100], [102], [103]

Philip H. Barton

Owen Dixon Chambers West

Tuesday, July 25, 2023

 

Blog 73. Appeal against Blog 63 allowed.

Hooper v Parwan Investments Pty Ltd & Anor (recs apptd) [2023] VSC 227, Forbes J.

This case was an appeal from the decision of Matthews AsJ ([2022] VSC 285) noted in Blog 63.  Before considering Forbes J.’s decision it is helpful to repeat the gist of the original decision commencing with the facts relevant to the appeal –

  • In 2015 Parwan Investments (Parwan) entered a contract to purchase a residential property (the Property) with funds obtained from a bank pursuant to a loan agreement with a facility amount of $850,000. On 16 December 2015 it became registered proprietor of the Property subject to a registered mortgage securing the loan.
  • On 21 October 2016 Parwan and the plaintiff (Hooper) entered into a contract of sale of part of the land (Purchased Area) for $900,001, with settlement due on 21 March 2018 unless the Purchased Area was a lot on an unregistered plan, in which case settlement was due on the later of 21 March 2018 or 14 days after notice of registration of the plan. Special Condition 7.1 of the contract made settlement conditional on Parwan subdividing the Property within 18 months from the day of sale and required that it use its best endeavours to achieve this.
  • The contract of sale also provided that it was subject to a lease between Parwan and Hooper. That day Parwan agreed to lease the Purchased Area to Hooper for 24 months and thereafter, unless terminated in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act, to continue as a periodic tenancy.
  • In 2017 Hooper caveated over the Property claiming an interest as purchaser under the contract of sale.
  • In 2018 Parwan executed a deed of charge in favour of Hooper creating an equitable charge over the Property securing payment of $350,000, said to reflect the value of Hooper’s improvements to the Property. In 2018 Hooper caveated over the Property claiming an interest as chargee based on this document.
  • On Parwan falling into default of mortgage repayments the bank in 2020 appointed receivers of the Property. Thereafter Parwan acted through the Receivers.  In 2021 the Receivers applied to the Registrar of Titles under the Transfer of Land Act s. 89A for a lapsing notice to remove the caveats.
  • Subdivision had not occurred. The bank and Receivers did not consent to sale of the Purchased Area to Hooper.  As at 3 December 2021 the mortgage debt was over $1.1m.
  • Hooper commenced a proceeding seeking specific performance of the contract of sale and certain declarations. Parwan filed a Defence and Counterclaim.  Parwan also issued a Summons applying for summary judgment under the Civil Procedure Act ss. 61, 62 and 63 on certain aspects of its pleading, which effectively mirrored the relief sought by Hooper, seeking a declaration concerning the lease, and alternative relief in the form of removal of the caveats.

Relevantly Matthews AsJ held –

  1. The Receivers had standing to counterclaim and press the Application contained in the Summons in the name of the registered proprietor Parwan.
  2. Although the contract of sale was binding Hooper’s claim for specific performance turned on whether the Property could be subdivided and on whether the sale could be settled given the bank’s attitude and in particular whether it would discharge its mortgage.
  3. As to whether the Property could be subdivided the weight of evidence was that because the Receivers and the bank did not consent to the sale Parwan was unwilling to, and could not effect, subdivision or transfer whereby it refused to perform its contractual obligations. In such circumstances the remedy of specific performance would probably require supervision by the court, which was usually a reason not to grant specific performance.  Further even if Parwan took steps towards subdivision, its achievement was outside its control.
  4. As to the bank’s attitude, Parwan could not deliver clear title to Hooper by redeeming the mortgage, which had priority over Hooper’s interest as purchaser and the mortgage debt now exceeded the purchase price.
  5. When the foregoing barriers, particularly impossibility of settlement because the mortgage would not be discharged, were combined there was no real prospect of Hooper obtaining specific performance.
  6. There was a prima facie case of the interest claimed in the purchase caveat. On the balance of convenience –
    1. neutral factors were: (a) that, although the bank desired sale, no contract of sale to a third party yet existed; (b) Hooper’s claim that he remained in possession of the Purchased Area, which in light of the evidence was questionable; (c) possible VCAT enforcement proceedings by the local municipality, on which there was a paucity of evidence; (d) Parwan’s offer to pay the net proceeds of sale into court or a trust account pending determination of Hooper’s claims.
    2. Hooper’s proposed undertaking to pay the difference between the price for the Purchased Area and the mortgage debt did not affect the balance of convenience because it was ambiguous and failed to articulate relevant factors including Hooper’s capacity to pay.
    3. However, the balance of convenience favoured removal of the caveat because of strong evidence of fundamental barriers to specific performance (and so any remedy for breach of contract would be for damages in lieu of specific performance).
  1. Although there was a prima facie case of the interest claimed in the charge caveat Hooper would retain the protection of the charge even without the caveat, there being no evidence that it could not be satisfied out of net proceeds remaining after payment under the bank’s mortgage. Accordingly, the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured removal of this caveat on condition that the net proceeds of sale were paid into court or a trust account.

On appeal Forbes J. held –

  1. As the appeal was from a discretionary judgment the principles of House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 applied. [62]
  2. The grant of summary judgment was attended by error in the finding that relief in the nature of specific performance had no real prospect of success. In particular –
    1. As to whether the Property could be subdivided, the contractual requirement to subdivide to create the Purchased Area did not, as a matter of principle, render specific performance unavailable and was as a matter of fact contested. It was for Parwan to show that the Melton Planning Scheme did not permit such subdivision and it had not led evidence (only assertion) on this.  The evidence rose no higher than that it had taken no step to subdivide and was refusing to do so (submitting it would be futile because of the bank’s intention to withhold consent), demonstrating only a breach of contract.  Although Parwan’s unwillingness to commence these steps was a significant barrier to settlement this was irrelevant to whether subdivision could occur – Parwan could not rely on its own non-performance as a barrier to specific performance.  Caution in concluding that subdivision could not occur was dictated by both the factual contest on this question and the discretionary nature of the relief sought, especially given the absence of evidence before the court.
    2. The proposition that Hooper lacked a real prospect of obtaining specific performance because of the bank’s refusal to consent to the sale unless its mortgage was discharged, because the sale proceeds of the Purchased Area would be insufficient for discharge, was based on the false premise that these proceeds were the only means of discharge. However, the mortgage was secured by the whole of the Property. [82]-[84], [87]-[95]
  1. The orders removing both caveats under s. 90(3) of the Transfer of Land Act were not rendered erroneous by the fact that the Summons did not seek this relief. The manner in which the hearing was conducted made it clear that these orders were sought to enable Parwan to sell the Property.  The absence of an originating procedure specifying relief pursuant to s. 90(3) was explicable by Hooper’s proceeding seeking declaratory relief, the effect of which would be to maintain the caveats. [98], [99]
  2. The only issue for Matthews AsJ to consider was where the balance of convenience lay in maintaining or removing the caveats. The factor most influencing her Honour, and indeed the only factor weighing against removal, was her conclusion that the contract was not specifically performable, notwithstanding that the validity of the contract of sale was to be determined at trial. [97], [100]

Philip H. Barton

          Owen Dixon Chambers West

        Wednesday, June 21, 2023

Blog 63. Mortgages/Charges and Caveats

This Blog covers three recent cases of interaction between caveats and securities taken over land.  In Launch Concept Developers Pty Ltd v Di Mauro & Ors the registered proprietor failed to have caveats based on charges temporarily removed so that it could refinance.   In Hooper v Parwan Investments Pty Ltd (recs apptd) caveats based respectively on a contract of sale and a charge were removed to permit sale by receivers appointed by a mortgagee bank.  In BD78 Pty Ltd & Anor v FGK3GEN Pty Ltd & Anor a caveat based on an equitable mortgage was removed to permit the registered proprietors to refinance by paying out a registered mortgage, on condition that the debt secured by the equitable mortgage was repaid and an amount calculated for interest was paid into court or into trust to be released by agreement or court order.

In Launch Concept Developers Pty Ltd v Di Mauro & Ors [2022] VSC 512, Moore J., (1 September 2022):

  • The plaintiff was registered proprietor of properties at Portland and Elsternwick.
  • The Portland property was subject to a registered first mortgage to a third party securing a debt of approximately $434,000.
  • The first and second defendants had lent money to the plaintiff secured by mortgages over the Elsternwick property and, ranking after the registered first mortgage, charges over the Portland property. The Elsternwick mortgage was in default.
  • Caveats had been lodged over the Portland property based on these charges.
  • The principal of the first defendant’s loan was $390,000, the sum outstanding was approximately $550,000, and interest was running at 23% per annum. The principal of the second defendant’s loan was $55,000, the sum outstanding was approximately $90,000, and interest was running at 36% per annum.
  • The estimated value of the Elsternwick property was only $600,000 and accordingly these debts exceeded the value of that property.
  • The plaintiff desired to refinance by discharging the Portland mortgage (which was in default) in favour of a new registered mortgage securing a loan of $520,000 but incurring less interest than under the current mortgage.
  • The plaintiff sought orders under the Transfer of Land Act s. 90(3) for removal of the Portland caveats to permit this new mortgage but with the caveators being permitted to re-caveat thereafter.
  • At the hearing the parties led differing evidence of the value of the Portland property. However, it was agreed that: on the plaintiff’s valuation plus estimate of building costs, taking into account both the Elsternwick and Portland properties, there would be total equity remaining of about $230,000; on the defendants’ valuation the remaining equity would be approximately $100,000.
  • Moore J. dismissed the application. The caveators indisputably had a caveatable interest and the balance of convenience was in their favour.  The proposed new mortgage would secure about $85,000 more than the existing mortgage and the caveators would suffer practical detriment from losing priority in this amount.  Even assuming that the remaining equity in both properties would be about $230,000, this was marginal given the plaintiff’s apparently parlous financial circumstances, there being no evidence of likely improvement.

Hooper v Parwan Investments Pty Ltd (recs apptd) [2022] VSC 285, Matthews AsJ (2 June 2022). 

The facts were –

  • In 2015 the first defendant (Parwan) entered a contract to purchase a residential property (the Property) with funds obtained from a bank pursuant to a loan agreement with a facility amount of $850,000. On 16 December 2015 it became registered proprietor of the Property subject to a registered mortgage securing the loan.
  • On 21 October 2016 Parwan and the plaintiff (Hooper) entered into a contract of sale of part of the land (Purchased Area) for $900,001, with settlement on 21 March 2018 unless the Purchased Area was a lot on an unregistered plan, in which case settlement was due on the later of 21 March 2018 or 14 days after notice of registration of the plan. Special Condition 7.1 of the contract made settlement conditional on Parwan subdividing the Property within 18 months from the day of sale and required that it use its best endeavours to achieve this.
  • The contract of sale also provided that it was subject to a lease between Parwan and Hooper. That day Parwan agreed to lease the Purchased Area to Hooper for 24 months and thereafter, unless terminated in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act, to continue as a periodic tenancy, and that each party must comply with that Act.
  • In 2017 Hooper caveated over the Property claiming an interest as purchaser under the contract of sale.
  • In 2018 Parwan executed a deed of charge in favour of Hooper creating an equitable charge over the Property securing payment of $350,000, said to reflect the value of Hooper’s improvements to the Property.  In 2018 Hooper caveated over the Property claiming an interest as chargee based on this document.
  • On Parwan falling into default of mortgage repayments the bank in 2020 appointed receivers of the Property. Thereafter Parwan acted through the Receivers.  In 2021 the Receivers applied to the Registrar of Titles under the Transfer of Land Act s. 89A for a lapsing notice to remove the caveats.
  • On 7 July 2021 Parwan gave Hooper a notice to vacate the Property pursuant to s. 91ZZB of the Residential Tenancies Act, stating the reasons as the receivership and the intent to offer the Property for sale with vacant possession immediately after the termination date specified in the notice. Hooper did not vacate.
  • Subdivision had not occurred. The bank and Receivers did not consent to sale of the Purchased Area to Hooper.  As at 3 December 2021 the mortgage debt was over $1.1m.
  • Hooper commenced a proceeding seeking specific performance of the contract of sale and certain declarations. Parwan filed a Defence and Counterclaim.  Parwan also issued a Summons applying for summary judgment under the Civil Procedure Act ss. 61, 62 and 63 on certain aspects of its pleading, which effectively mirrored the relief sought by Hooper, a declaration concerning the lease, and alternative relief in the form of removal of the caveats.

Matthews AsJ made orders including for removal of the caveats –

  1. Although the appointment of the Receivers extended only to the Property and was not in respect of the whole company, they had standing to counterclaim and press the Application contained in the Summons in the name of the registered proprietor Parwan. Both the mortgage and s. 420 of the Corporations Act gave the Receivers broad powers. [31]-[36]
  2. Although the contract of sale was binding Hooper’s claim for specific performance turned on whether the Property could be subdivided and on whether the sale could be settled given the bank’s attitude and in particular whether it would discharge its mortgage. The weight of evidence was that because the Receivers and the bank did not consent to the sale Parwan was unwilling to, and could not effect, subdivision or transfer whereby it refused to perform its contractual obligations.  In such circumstances the remedy of specific performance would probably require supervision by the court, which was usually a reason not to grant specific performance.  Further even if Parwan took steps towards subdivision, its achievement was outside its control.  A further barrier to specific performance was that Parwan could not deliver clear title to Hooper by redeeming the mortgage, which had priority over Hooper’s interest as purchaser and the mortgage debt now exceeded the purchase price.  When the foregoing barriers, particularly impossibility of settlement because the mortgage would not be discharged, were combined there was no real prospect of specific performance. [57]-[65]
  3. There was a prima facie case of the interest claimed in the purchase caveat. On the balance of convenience –
    1. neutral factors were: (a) that, although the bank desired sale, no contract of sale to a third party yet existed; (b) Hooper’s claim that he remained in possession of the Purchased Area, which in light of the evidence was questionable; (c) possible VCAT enforcement proceedings by the local municipality, on which there was a paucity of evidence; (d) Parwan’s offer to pay the net proceeds of sale into court or a trust account pending determination of Hooper’s claims.
    2. Hooper’s proposed undertaking to pay the difference between the price for the Purchased Area and the mortgage debt did not affect the balance of convenience because it was ambiguous and failed to articulate relevant factors including Hooper’s capacity to pay.
    3. the balance of convenience favoured removal of the caveat because of strong evidence of fundamental barriers to specific performance (and so any remedy for breach of contract would be for damages in lieu of specific performance). [66]-[72], [75]-[79]
  4. Although there was a prima facie case of the interest claimed in the charge caveat Hooper would retain the protection of the charge even without the caveat, there being no evidence that it could not be satisfied out of net proceeds remaining after payment under the bank’s mortgage. Accordingly, the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured removal of this caveat on condition that the net proceeds of sale were paid into court or a trust account.  [81]-[83]
  5. Parwan was entitled to summary judgment on its application for a declaration that the Lease Agreement had been validly determined. [91]

BD78 Pty Ltd & Anor v FGK3GEN Pty Ltd & Anor [2022] VSC 361, Ginnane J (23 June 2022)

The facts were –

  • In August 2020 the plaintiffs agreed to sell land to the first defendant for $12.7m. The contract had not yet been settled.
  • The plaintiffs also borrowed $6.9m. from third parties and in September 2020 a mortgage securing that loan was registered.
  • On 5 October 2020 the plaintiffs and the first defendant entered a loan agreement under which the first defendant lent $1.9m. to the plaintiffs secured by an instrument of mortgage over the land which was only to be registered if there was an Event of Default (cl. 8.2(b)). The agreement:
    • permitted the lender to caveat over the land to record its equitable interest as mortgagee (cl 8.2(a));
    • defined “Repayment Date” as the earlier of settlement of the contract and termination of the contract for any reason other than breach of it by the lender;
    • because the land was on an unregistered plan of subdivision, in substance made settlement due 14 days after notice to the purchaser of its registration. If the plan was not registered by 31 August 2022 either party could end it before registration with refund of the deposit (Special Condition 14);
    • made interest payable on the Repayment Date unless the Loan and all other “Secured Money” was repaid on that date (cl. 3). The agreement defined “Interest Rate” and “Default Interest Rate”.
    • defined certain matters as an “Event of Default” and in cl. 10.1 stated “Effect of Event of Default”.
  • On 11 March 2022 the first defendant caveated over the land claiming an interest as mortgagee and stating the prohibition as “unless I/we consent in writing”.
  • The plaintiffs were in default under the registered mortgage and in May 2022 the mortgagee foreshadowed issue of a Callup Notice unless a definite payment date was stated.
  • On 17 June the first defendant served a Notice of Default alleging two Events of Default under the loan agreement, the first being a change of effective control of the borrower. The notice demanded repayment of $1.9m. with interest on that amount and on the “Secured Money” pursuant to cl 10(1) of the loan agreement.
  • The plaintiffs desired to refinance the first mortgage loan on 24 June and to repay the first defendant in return for withdrawal of its caveat. The plaintiffs applied under the Transfer of Land Act s. 90(3) for removal of the caveat, which they contended was preventing this refinancing.  The hearing commenced on 20 June.

Ginnane J held –

  1. As the first defendant’s mortgage was at least an equitable mortgage it had a caveatable interest. [5], [8], [17]
  2. An Event of Default, to at least a degree sufficient for this application, had been established namely a change of control in the shareholding of the borrowers. [16], [21], [27]
  3. The question of whether the plaintiffs could repay the loan amount of $1.9m. before the ‘Repayment Date’ had been overtaken by the service of the Notice of Default. Clause 3 made no provision for early repayment, even following a Notice of Default, and it was arguable that it had to be read with cl. 10 which mandated interest at the ordinary rate when early repayment occurred.  It was reasonably arguable that the plaintiffs were obliged to pay interest on $1.9m. but only at the ordinary rate of 5%. [16], [27], [28], [30]
  4. The first mortgagees had foreshadowed possible enforcement of their rights, which may prejudice both the plaintiffs and first defendant. Further, if the Notice of Default and demand for repayment had not been served, a Repayment Date only two months away (on 31 August 2022) may have been reached based on non-registration of the plan of subdivision, in which case the contract could have been terminated with no interest payable.  The caveat would accordingly be removed on condition that the plaintiffs repaid $1.9m. and paid interest at 5% ($169,758.56) into court (thereby giving the first defendant some security for additional claims for payment) to be released by agreement or court order.  As such security existed no undertaking as to damages by the plaintiffs was necessary. [31], [32], [34]
  5. Because the caveat was removed by court order the first defendant could not, by reason of the Transfer of Land Act s. 91(4), lodge another caveat in respect of its same interest under the loan agreement, but could have done so if the existing caveat had been withdrawn. [33]

       Philip H. Barton

          Owen Dixon Chambers West

        Tuesday, November 22, 2022

 

28. Contracts of sale – No caveatable interest.

Gold Road No. 3 Pty Ltd v Platt [2019] VSC 714 concerned a completed contract of sale as to which the erstwhile vendor caveated on the ground of no consideration, repudiation, and misleading or deceptive conduct.  Jovanovski & Anor v T Square Investments Pty Ltd & Anor [2019] VSC 641 concerned a caveat lodged by a purchaser who had nominated a substitute purchaser.  The caveats were removed.

Gold Road No. 3 Pty Ltd v Platt [2019] VSC 714, Ginnane J (17 October 2019)

The facts were:

·        In March 2017 Mr and Mrs Platt entered a contract of sale of their bayside property to Evergrande Properties Pty Ltd, controlled by Michael Elliott.  The contract did not proceed, Evergrande sued for specific performance and the Platts counterclaimed. 

·     The proceeding was settled.  The settlement documents included a deed which inter alia: substituted the plaintiff, being another company controlled by Elliott, as purchaser, and affirmed the 2017 contract; and contained mutual releases.  The Platts had legal advice.  The proceeding was subsequently dismissed without any right of reinstatement.

·      On 27 September 2018 the sale settled including by Gold Road paying approximately $2 m. to a bank to discharge its mortgage, Gold Road having borrowed this from AusFinance Group Pty Ltd, who it must now repay.  Evergrande also advanced the Platts approximately $100,000 to repay money owing to another company.  Gold Road became registered proprietor.

·   The parties also entered into a Development Rights Agreement (‘DRA’).  Its recitals included that the Development Manager (Gold Road) and the Platts had agreed that the Development Manager would develop the land and that the Platts would have the right to purchase a lot in the development. 

·   On the ground, disputed by the Platts, that the development was commercially unviable and that a condition precedent was not met, Gold Road terminated the DRA and asserted the right to deal with the land at its discretion. 

·    The Platts caveated claiming a freehold estate and an absolute prohibition on Gold Road dealing with the land.  The Platts contended that the consideration for the transfer had been illusory, that Gold Road had repudiated the DRA, and that Elliott and his company may have engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct.  As to the consideration argument the Platts argued inter alia that: the DRA effectively enabled the Development Manager to acquire land for an undervalue; the DRA did not require the Development Manager to attempt to develop the land; that the settlement was a ‘hoodwink’ of Mrs Platt’s rights;

·        Gold Road applied under s. 90(3) for removal of the caveat.

Ginnane J. held –

1.    The settlement deed was supported by consideration in the form of mutual releases and the payment by Gold Road on behalf of the Platts. [14], [31]

2.    The Platts’ case, if proved, would probably provide a remedy in damages for breach of the DRA or other agreements based on their repudiation by Gold Road or for damages caused by misleading or deceptive conduct.  This did not create a prima facie case of a caveatable interest: the possibility of a remedy under the Australian Consumer Law, particularly under s 243, did not create an estate or interest in land. [28], [29], [32]

3.   The balance of convenience also favoured removal of the caveat, in particular Gold Road needed to repay the loan to AusFinance and the fact that it was registered proprietor normally carried the right to sell the property. [34]-[35]

 

Jovanovski & Anor v T Square Investments Pty Ltd & Anor [2019] VSC 641,
Cameron J (20 September 2019).

The plaintiffs and first defendant entered into a contract of sale under which the price was payable in four instalments.  The first defendant caveated.  It failed to pay the third instalment and did not comply with a rescission notice.  About a year before the third instalment was due it nominated a nominee purchaser and her Honour stated that from that date the nominee “became exclusively liable for the due performance of all the obligations of the First Defendant pursuant to the Contract”.  Her Honour held that as the first defendant had nominated another purchaser there was no serious issue to be tried that the first defendant had a caveatable interest. 

Comment: The fact that the first defendant no longer had a caveatable interest appears to hinge on the form of the nomination, ie that the nominee became “exclusively liable”. By contrast in Six Bruce Pty Ltd v Milatos and Ors [2017] VSC 784 (Blog 8) the plaintiff contracted to sell a property to the first defendant Milatos. He nominated a substitute purchaser AM Land. The first defendant eventually rescinded the contract and caveated on the ground of a lien to secure repayment of money paid under the contract. The caveat did not name the substitute purchaser. An argument that the caveat was defective, at least as to part of the monies paid because the nominee was not named was rejected by Keogh J: after nomination A M land did not acquire rights as purchaser against Six Bruce. The rights and obligations as purchaser remained with Mr Milatos. Keogh J. referred to: Tonelli v Komirra Pty Ltd [1972] VR 737 at 739; Commissioner of State Revenue v Politis [2004] VSC 126, [11]; 428 Lt Bourke St Pty Ltd v Lonsdale St Cafe Pty Ltd & Ors [2009] VSC 133, [24]-[25].


Further, General Condition 18 in the REIV/LIV contract of sale provides that despite nomination the name purchaser remains personally liable for the due performance of all the purchaser’s obligations under the contract.

 

 

19. Foreign money invested in property – whether trust created or mere loan – caveat removed but sale monies paid into trust.

Oz Envision Development Pty Ltd & Anor v Yuan (11 October 2018) [2018] VSC 607 McDonald J.   

The facts were –

  • In or about 2012 the defendant transferred$5.01 m. to enable the first plaintiff to acquire two properties. 
  • One property was subdivided into three units. 
  • In 2016 a deed of arrangement was entered into between the first plaintiff and the defendant whereby funds from the sale of this land were to be paid to the second plaintiff to enable it to undertake property development.
  • Contracts of sale of the three units for a total of $2,665,000 were entered into. 
  • The defendant caveated over both properties claiming that the advance of monies gave rise to a caveatable interest pursuant to an implied or resulting trust.

The plaintiffs alleged that the funds were merely a loan and so gave rise to no caveatable interest. 

The defendant, who was a Chinese National, deposed that:

  • the purpose of the payment was to invest $5 m. in Australia, this being required for the purpose of seeking  Australian residency;
  • the director of the first plaintiff was so appointed because he held the required residency status for directorship of a company in Australia which the defendant did not;
  • there was no discussion as to a loan including as to interest and that his intention was “that the money I paid to the First Plaintiff meant that the properties purchased by the First Plaintiff were my properties”. 

McDonald J held –

  1. There was a serious question to be tried that a caveatable interest existed based on a resulting trust.  There was no written loan agreement or evidence of a verbal loan agreement, and this absence was consistent with the terms of the deed.  Financial evidence of a loan, produced by the plaintiffs, in particular unaudited balance sheets of some weight, was nonetheless inconclusive. [8], [10]-[11], [13], [17]
  2. However, the balance of convenience favoured removal of the caveats because they were having a significant adverse effect upon the first plaintiff’s business, were preventing completion of the contracts, and were affecting the rights of the innocent purchasers. [17]-[19]
  3. Nonetheless, the proceeds of sale would not be distributed in accordance with the deed but would be paid into trust or an interest bearing account (in the solicitors’ names) pending trial.  The argument that this was contrary to the implementation of the deed was overcome by the first defendant’s allegations that he, being illiterate in English, had been induced to execute the deed by fraudulent misrepresentation by the director of the first plaintiff about its terms. [20]-[21], [23], [25]

Comment:

  1. From a non-legal aspect this case is a manifestation of the common phenomenon of foreign money being advanced to buy Australian property on terms not clearly documented.
  2. His Honour did not spell out the law of resulting trusts, but where property is put into the name of a non-contributor, or one of a number of contributors,to the purchase price, it is generally presumed to be held by the registered proprietor on trust for the contributors in proportion to their contributions, eg:Piroshenko v Grojsman [2010] VSC 240 (in which the claim failed on the facts).
  3. However, money lent for the purpose of being applied towards the purchase price of land does not, on being so applied, entitle the lender to an estate or interest in the land, unless the parties intended that the lender should have security for the loan: Simons v David Benge Motors Pty Ltd [1974] VR 585. 

 

15. Caveat removed because nothing remaining after discharge of prior registered mortgage

Glenis & Anor v Ikosedikas & Ors [2018] VSC 278 (30 May 2018) T Forrest J.

The defendants alleged that in 2011 the first plaintiff entered into a loan agreement consolidating previous loans with a then balance of about $250,000.  The agreement gave the lender had the right to caveat over certain residential land owned by the plaintiffs if the loan was not repaid that year.  The first plaintiff said that his signature on the agreement was forged but did not dispute a debt which by April 2018 had with compound interest risen to between $450,000 and $690,000.

In March 2018 the plaintiffs entered into a contract to sell that land for $1.995 m.  It was subject to a registered mortgage securing loans with current balances of over $2 m. though apparently another property owned by the second plaintiff was linked to this

mortgage.

In April 2018 the defendants caveated on the grounds of “part-performed oral agreement with the registered proprietors”, the estate or interest claimed being “interest as charge”. 

The plaintiffs applied to remove the caveat.   Counsel for the plaintiffs was prepared to assume for the purposes of argument on this application that the loan agreement was genuine.  He also argued that the caveat was defective: in its reference to oral agreement; because it was over the whole property; and when the charge was allegedly created the plaintiffs did not have legal estate in the land.

His Honour held –

1.      The existence of the loan agreement sufficed to establish a serious question to be tried.  Assuming the authenticity of the agreement, the first plaintiff intended to grant the defendants a charge over the property as security for a loan already advanced.  The fact that the first plaintiff possessed no proprietary rights as at the date of the agreement was not fatal as the parties understood that the charge related to future property which at the time of enforcement could be identified.  Questions of a carve out of the second plaintiff’s interest and whether the caveat ought be struck down as defective or amended to reflect the assertedly misleading ‘oral agreement’ grounds of claim were unsuitable for determination in an interlocutory proceeding. [13]

2.      Where a caveator establishes a serious question to be tried, the balance of convenience tilts in favour of that caveator. [14]

3.      However notwithstanding the substantial debt intended by the first plaintiff to be secured over the property the balance of convenience favoured the registered proprietors because of delay in lodging the caveat until after the contract of sale and the fact that the registered mortgage rendered the caveat worthless.  To allow the caveat to remain in place would frustrate the sale without benefit to the caveator. [14]-[15]

Comment: The statement by his Honour that the balance of convenience tilted in favour of the caveator was supported by him with citation of interstate authority.  This is more commonly expressed in Victoria in other authority cited by his Honour, namely that the caveator must establish that the balance of convenience favours maintenance of the caveat until trial and the stronger the case is in the evaluation of the serious question issue, the more readily the balance of convenience might be satisfied.  

12. RECENT SUPREME COURT CASES DEC 2017 – FEB 2018 (6 of 6)

Costs

Toh & Anor v Wu & Anor [2018] VSC 36 (12 February 2018) Daly AsJ.

The chronology was –

 

2017                            First defendant commences family law proceeding in Federal Magistrates Court

against her husband.  The plaintiffs in the subsequently issued Supreme

Court proceeding are her in-laws and are registered proprietors of a

property.  Application (not yet determined) to join plaintiffs as parties

to the family law proceeding and to restrain sale of property or have proceeds

of sale retained in trust pending determination of

proceeding.

28 November 2017   Caveat lodged by first defendant over the property, grounds of claim being “court order under the Family Law Act 1975”.

15 January 2018       Plaintiffs notify intention to issue and issue s. 90(3) application. 

16 January 2018       Service of application and material in support.

18 January 2018       Hearing at which caveat ordered to be removed.  Order that net proceeds of sale be held in trust.  Costs reserved.

29 January 2018        Settlement of sale of property due.

Daly AsJ ordered that each party should bear their own costs of the s. 90(3) application.  Her Honour reasoned –

  1. In removing the caveat the court had not considered whether there was a serious question to be tried.  Although the interest claimed in the caveat was not prima facie a recognized proprietary interest the underlying documents tolerably revealed claims pursuant to a resulting or constructive trust, and the suddenness of the application severely compromised the caveator’s ability to respond.  However, the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured removal because of settlement and finance difficulties.  The removal was also influenced by the fact that, having regard to the existing Federal Magistrates’ Court proceedings, it was in the parties’ interests for property interests to be determined in one proceeding, not fragmented across jurisdictions.
  2. Special circumstances warranted the plaintiffs not receiving their costs, namely their failure to warn the caveator of the intended application.  While it would often be unnecessary or impractical to warn of an application, the application here was made some 7 weeks after lodgement of the caveat and only 7 business days before settlement of the sale was due.  The caveator was ambushed.
  3. The caveator’s alleged impecuniosity was irrelevant to the costs decision.

8. RECENT SUPREME COURT CASES DEC 2017 – FEB 2018 (2 of 6)

A caveat removed on the balance of convenience to permit refinancing.

Six Bruce Pty Ltd v Milatos and Ors [2017] VSC 784, 19 December 2017, Keogh J. 

The chronology was –

19 February 2016      Plaintiff becomes registered proprietor of a property using funds secured by registered first mortgage. It subsequently defaults under the mortgage.

20 May 2016              VCAT orders that a permit issue allowing construction of a four-storey apartment building on the property.

5 February 2017        Plaintiff contracts to sell the entire property to first defendant.  Deposit paid.   

20 March 2017          Purchaser nominates substitute purchaser.

3 July 2017                 Settlement date extended to 4 August 2017 on the basis that purchaser pay an additional deposit which it (not the nominee) does.   

31 July 2017               Purchaser learns of undisclosed drainage easement

affecting the property.

8 August 2017            Vendor serves rescission notice based on non-payment of balance of price.

14 August 2017          Purchaser services rescission notice based on alleged

non-disclosure of the easement in the vendor’s statement.  Vendor retains

deposit.

September 2017        Vendor enters joint venture agreement to develop the property. 

3 October 2017         Purchaser caveats on ground of lien to secure repayment of money paid under the contract.  Caveat does not name the nominee substitute purchaser.  Two registered mortgages and two previous caveats exist.  There is a subsequent caveat.

10 October 2017        Purchaser sues for return of deposit or declaration re caveat.

12 October 2017        Mortgagee sues vendor for repayment under mortgage. 

20 November 2017    Vendor receives refinance offer from other lenders.

27 November 2017    Vendor files Defence to purchaser’s proceeding substantially disputing the claim. 

The vendor commenced a proceeding under s. 90(3) to remove the purchaser’s caveat to permit refinance.  

Keogh J removed the caveat subject to conditions.  His Honour held –  

1.      There was a prima facie case that the caveator had the interest claimed.  The prospects of the vendor being excused under the Sale of Land Act s. 32K(4) for breach of the law in the section 32 statement were entirely uncertain.

2.      The caveat was not required to name the nominee. The effect of the nomination clause was to empower the purchaser to require the vendor to complete the contract by transfer of the property to the name of the nominee.  After nomination the nominee did not acquire rights as purchaser.

3.      However the balance of convenience favoured removal of the caveat because: most of the deposit had been released, presumably by agreement; the trial of the purchaser’s proceeding was distant; without the refinancing a mortgagee’s sale was likely; the vendor undertook not to deal with the property pending determination of the purchaser’s proceeding; the vendor agreed to charge the property to secure the amount of any judgment thus then enabling a further caveat; accordingly the purchaser’s position would probably be improved by the refinancing.