Category: Contract – Principles of interpretation

Blog 75. Masters v Cameron

Stathopoulos v Cremin & Anor [2023] VSC 238, Barrett AsJ. 

Unlike most previous Blogs this Blog does not concern an Application under the Transfer of Land Act (TLA) s. 90(3) but rather concerns a proceeding commenced following a notice by the Registrar of Titles under s. 89A(1), the plaintiff having caveated over the first defendant’s land claiming an equitable interest as purchaser under a contract of sale.  The registered proprietor applied for summary dismissal of the proceeding with consequential removal of the caveats.

Barrett AsJ considers at length principles of contractual interpretation, the law on the Instruments Act s. 126, and in particular the law where parties reach agreement on terms of a contractual nature but also agree that the matter of their negotiation shall be dealt with by a formal contract.  The foundational law is contained in the High Court judgment in Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353 at 360 – 362 as follows –

“Where parties who have been in negotiation reach agreement upon terms of a contractual nature and also agree that the matter of their negotiation shall be dealt with by a formal contract, the case may belong to any of three cases.  It may be one in which the parties have reached finality in arranging all the terms of their bargain and intend to be immediately bound to the performance of those terms, but at the same time propose to have the terms restated in a form which will be fuller or more precise but not different in effect.  Or, secondly, it may be a case in which the parties have completely agreed upon all the terms of their bargain and intend no departure from or addition to that which their agreed terms express or imply, but nevertheless have made performance of one or more of the terms conditional upon the execution of a formal document.  Or, thirdly, the case may be one in which the intention of the parties is not to make a concluded bargain at all, unless and until they execute a formal contract.

In each of the first two cases there is a binding contract: in the first case a contract binding the parties at once to perform the agreed terms whether the contemplated formal document comes into existence or not, and to join (if they have so agreed) in settling and executing the formal document; and in the second case a contract binding the parties to join in bringing the formal contract into existence and then to carry it into execution.  …

Cases of the third class are fundamentally different. They are cases in which the terms of agreement are not intended to have, and therefore do not have, any binding effect of their own: … The parties may have so provided either because they have dealt only with major matters and contemplate that others will or may be regulated by provisions to be introduced into the formal document, … or simply because they wish to reserve to themselves a right to withdraw at any time until the formal document is signed. …

The question depends upon the intention disclosed by the language the parties have employed, and no special form of words is essential to be used in order that there shall be no contract binding upon the parties before the execution of their agreement in its ultimate shape: … Nor is any formula, such as “subject to contract”, so intractable as always and necessarily to produce that result: … But the natural sense of such words was shown by the language of Lord Westbury when he said … “if to a proposal or offer an assent be given subject to a provision as to a contract, then the stipulation as to the contract is a term of the assent, and there is no agreement independent of that stipulation”. …

This being the natural meaning of “subject to contract”, “subject to the preparation of a formal contract”, and expressions of similar import, it has been recognized throughout the cases on the topic that such words prima facie create an overriding condition, so that what has been agreed upon must be regarded as the intended basis for a future contract and not as constituting a contract.”

There is arguably a fourth category, being a variation upon the first category, ie a class of case in which the parties are content to be bound immediately and exclusively by the agreed terms whilst expecting to make a further contract in substitution for the first contract, containing, by consent, additional terms.

The facts were –

  • The first defendant (the vendor) was registered proprietor of Lots 1 and 2, 343 McGlone Road, Drouin.  On 3 September 2018 she and the plaintiff (Stathopoulos) entered into a contract of sale of, according to the document, Lot 2 but Stathopoulos pleaded it was of Lot 1 (the First Contract).  $5,000 was paid under this contract, which however did not proceed.
  • Stathopoulos deposed that between 30 March and 9 April 2020 he dealt with a Mr Shnall, who, in the week beginning on 30 March telephoned him saying that he was an estate agent calling on behalf of the vendor and in this conversation Stathopoulos offered $8m. for both lots.  (The vendor did not allege that Schnall was not acting for her, but deposed that on 9 April she received an offer in draft under cover of a letter from Schnall stating that his company was instructed to present this offer on behalf of a significant investor etc, without naming that investor).  Stathopoulos deposed that on 7 April Schnall told him that the vendor had rejected this offer to which he orally responded with four alternate offers.
  • Stathopoulos alleged: that later on 7 April Schnall emailed that these offers had been presented to the vendor, and Schnall sought four separate letters of offer in the terms set out in Schnall’s email, saying that, if these letters were provided by midday the next day, he would have the offer that the vendor selected signed off on the following Monday.  Schnall concluded “[l]ook forward to executing this deal for you George next week”.
  • Four letters of offer in the terms set out in Schnall’s email were emailed by Stathopoulos.  Offer 3 was in substance: the property to be purchased was 343 McGlone Road including the 1 acre lot improved by the vendor’s house; the price was $9m. payable as to $1.8m. on execution and the balance on 1 September 2021; it included a condition requiring the purchaser to pay $10,000 to cover the costs of contract preparation, refundable if the vendor did not execute the contract of sale and non-refundable if the purchaser did not execute it.
  • On 9 April Stathopoulos advised Schnall that his details were as on the First Contract, ie “George Stathopoulos and or nominee”.  Stathopoulos alleged that later that day Shnall contacted him, saying that he was with the vendor at her house, and that she accepted offer 3 for both Lots 1 and 2 and Schnall said:

“he would draw it up and get [the first defendant] to sign it, and that he would then meet me to get me to sign it.  He also told me that [the first defendant] wanted $20,000.00 for the contract preparation costs, which I communicated that I agreed to, to Mr Schnall, while he was in [the first defendant’s] presence.  In response to this, he then informed me that [the first defendant] said ‘Congratulations!”

  • On 9 and 10 April 2020 the parties respectively signed a short document headed ‘Offer to Purchase – Key Terms and Conditions’, which Stathopoulos alleged was the “Second Contract”.  Its substantive terms included: the “Properties” were both Lots; the price was $9m. payable as to $1.8m. “on the execution of the Contract of Sale” and the balance on 1 September 2021; “Contract  This offer is subject to the purchaser and vendor executing a legally enforceable Contract of Sale”; “Exclusivity  The vendor confirms that they will immediately upon acceptance of this offer cease any other negotiations and will not start any new negotiations in respect of the property [whilst] contract negotiations with the Purchaser are underway”; “Contract Preparation Payment” being in substance as in Offer 3 with the amount increased to $20,000; a term imposing confidentiality on the vendor.  The vendor signed this document under the words, headed “Acknowledgment by the Vendor”, “I, the undersigned, agree to the above-mentioned purchase details, key terms and conditions”.
  • Stathopoulos deposed that between 12 and 29 June 2020 the vendor congratulated him on completing the deal, enjoyed discussing his development plans, stated that she was particularly happy that the Precinct Structure Plan allowed for a school to be part of the development, and on 23 June said that she would tell her solicitor Mr Bridge to “hurry up” with the contracts and send them to him.
  • On 24 June the vendor emailed Stathopoulos that she had forgot to mention that she wanted the contract to include terms permitting her to continue living in the house for a year after settlement rent free and requiring him to pay rates until settlement.  Stathopoulos deposed that later that day he told Bridge that he agreed to these requests and that the vendor wanted Bridge to “hurry up” with issuing the contracts (Bridge replying that he knew what she wanted), and that in answer to Bridge’s question he confirmed that his details were the same as in the First Contract.
  • On 30 June 2020 the vendor’s solicitors emailed Stathopoulos stating –

“The Vendor Statement and Contract of Sale are ready to be finalised.
In order to proceed, can you please provide me with your full name and/or entity purchasing the property and your lawyer details.”

Stathopoulos replied “I am waiting on a GST ruling from the ATO”.

  • In April 2021 a dispute erupted between Stathopoulos and the vendor’s solicitors as to whether any contract existed.  Stathopoulos had not by this time paid the $20,000 for preparation of the contract.
  • In May 2021 the vendor entered a contract to sell Lot 2 to another purchaser due for settlement in May 2023.  In March 2022 Stathopoulos caveated over the land described in the Second Contract claiming an equitable estate in the land as purchaser.  The vendor applied under s. 89A(1) for removal of the caveats and in due course Stathopoulos gave notice to the Registrar of commencing this proceeding for specific performance of the alleged Second Contract.  The vendor counterclaimed seeking removal of the caveats.  She also issued a Summons seeking summary dismissal of the proceeding.

Barrett AsJ dismissed the application for summary dismissal, holding –

  1. There was a real question to be tried whether the Second Contract was a binding agreement, and the plaintiff had a real not merely fanciful prospect of success. While there was force in the argument that the facts fell within the third category of Masters v Cameron  it was open to the plaintiff to argue that the words “subject to contract” were not decisive and that circumstances both before and after the alleged contract supported its existence.  Consideration of those matters would probably involve consideration of the parties’ relationship through negotiations and at least one signed contract and of discussions post-dating the alleged Second Contract.  Further what occurred in the lead up to the signing of the Second Contract, including the dealings of the parties with Schnall, was somewhat obscure and could be relevant to questions of agency and attribution of knowledge.  Finally, immediately before Schnall took the four offers to the vendor he stated that he looked forward “executing this deal for you … next week” and shortly after this the vendor signed a document in which she agreed “to the abovementioned purchase details, key terms and conditions”.   The terms of the alleged Second Contract headed “Exclusivity” and “Contract Preparation Payment” did not detract from the conclusion that there was a real question to be tried whether the Second Contract was a binding agreement. [37], [50], [51]
  2. Section 126 of the Instruments Act required that the agreement on which the action was brought, or a memorandum or note of the agreement, was in writing signed by the person to be charged or by a person lawfully authorised in writing by that person to sign such an agreement, memorandum or note. The vendor carried the onus of establishing non-compliance with s. 126.  If Schnall was acting as her agent then it was arguable that, on 9 April 2020, she by her agent received the four offers under cover of an email that specifically identified the plaintiff as the purchaser.  There were significant questions whether the Second Contract contained a sufficient description of the purchaser, either directly by reason of Stathopoulos’ signature, or by the description as purchaser, or having regard to extrinsic evidence that accompanied the four offers, or other evidence.  On this the plaintiff had a real as opposed to fanciful prospect of success and that there was a real question to be tried. [54], [59], [65]
  3. As the question involved an interest in land the balance of convenience favoured the status quo. [52]
  4. Accordingly the caveats would remain. [67]

Barrett AsJ set out at length the law related to: contractual construction including the admissibility of post-contractual conduct ([35], [45]); the Masters v Cameron categories ([36]); and the Instruments Act s. 126 ([55], [58], [60]-[63]).

Philip H. Barton

          Owen Dixon Chambers West

        Tuesday, August 8, 2023

 

Blog 69. Claim for compensation under TLA s. 118 fails.

187 Settlement Road v Kennards Storage Management [2022] VSC 771, Gorton J., (14 December 2022)

Note: In this case Gorton J. dismissed a claim for compensation under s. 118 for alleged lodgment of a caveat “without reasonable cause”.   His Honour conducted an intricate analysis of the law.  In particular:

  1. His Honour pointed out that the commonly judicially approved test for “without reasonable cause”, ie whether the caveator did not have an honest belief based on reasonable grounds that it had a caveatable interest: sat comfortably with the text of s. 118 where there was some factual uncertainty but where the legal consequences were otherwise straightforward; but did not easily apply where a caveator had an honest belief as to a set of facts the legal consequences of which arguably did, but might not, give rise to a caveatable interest.  In the latter case it was preferable simply to ask: was the caveat lodged “without reasonable cause”?
  2. His Honour dealt with the situation whether, even if a caveat was lodged without reasonable cause, it was just to order compensation if there was no causal connection between the caveat and any loss, or if by the time the caveat became a source of loss there was a proper basis for its lodgment.
  3. His Honour also dealt with the consequences, for the purposes of s. 118, of the prohibition on any dealings with the property and the claim of a freehold estate.
  4. His Honour considered complex issues of contractual interpretation and in what circumstances a right of first refusal, ie a conditional right to purchase under the contract, gave rise to a caveatable interest.

The facts were –

  • 187 Settlement Road Pty Ltd (187SR) was registered proprietor of land in Thomastown (the property).  GDM Self Storage Group Pty Ltd (GDM) owned the self-storage business conducted there.  Leslie Smith controlled both companies.   Kennards Storage Management Pty Ltd (KSM) was associated with Sam Kennard.
  • On 1 September 2015 187SR and KSM executed an agreement with a term of 5 years commencing that day, renewable at the option of either party.   Under the agreement: the “Centre” was defined to be the self-storage centre at the property and the “Business” was defined to be the operation of the Centre; 187SR agreed to develop and then maintain the Centre and KSM agreed to provide management services there and 187SR agreed to pay fees including a “performance incentive fee” if the property were sold.  Clause 16, headed “First and Last Right of Refusal”, provided that during and for 2 years after the end of that agreement the Owner (ie 187SR) must not, without first making the same offer to KSM (Offer), inter alia, sell Centre or the property (cl. 16(a)).  Under cl. 16(b) the Offer to sell was required to be in writing accompanied by a contract of sale specifying the purchase price, deposit, settlement date and any other material terms and KSM had 14 days to accept it.  Clause 16(c) provided that: “The Owner must not … sell … the Centre except at a … price not less than and on terms and conditions not more favourable to KSM than as specified in any Offer made pursuant to sub-clauses (a) and (b) above, provided that before offering to grant on such lesser terms to another party, those terms must be first offered to KSM, so KSM has the last … right to purchase all or any part of the Property or the Centre”.
  • Following construction the Centre commenced operation shortly thereafter in August 2019.  KSM operated the Business.  However, due to complications attributable to 187SR being a trustee company, Smith and Kennard then deemed it preferable for GDM (not 187SR) to own the Business (as occurred at certain premises in Cheltenham).  More particularly:
    • After KSM raised the potential problem of the trusteeship the chief financial officer of KSM emailed Smith on 27 November 2019 saying: “I see the new Mgmt agreement [that is, the agreement for the premises in Cheltenham] was signed with GDM Self Storage – could we adjust the Thomastown agreement to this ABN and then we should be sorted?”
    • On 2 December 2019 Smith responded: “We are OK for the TT [Thomastown] management agreement to be under GDM Self Storage as well”.
    • On 12 December 2019 a financial controller at KSM emailed Smith attaching a document (“the 2019 agreement”) and saying:

      “As discussed … please find attached new management agreement for Thomastown …. This is between KSM and GDM Self Storage and this agreement supersedes the old SSAMA dated 1st September 2015 with 187 Settlement Road.  Please sign and return, thanks.”

  • Smith then signed and returned the 2019 agreement.  This was in the same terms as the 2015 agreement (even being dated and applying from 1 September 2015) with an additional clause providing that it superseded “Self Storage Asset Management Agreement dated 1st September 2015 between Kennards Storage Management Pty Ltd … and 187SR Pty Ltd …”.  This document also provided for “performance incentive fee” if the property were sold payable by GDM, calculated by reference to the EBITDA of the business.
  • In late September 2020, in response to Smith’s invitation, Kennard expressed interest in purchasing the property and the Cheltenham property.  Smith provided valuations, the valuation for the property being $19 m.
  • On 28 October Kennard emailed an offer to purchase the property for $16.2 m.  The email included: “This offer is made separately to the terms of the Management Agreement and does not forfeit any rights and obligations outlined by Clause 16 of the agreement”.
  • On 4 November 187SR obtained a signed “offer to purchase” the property for $18.5 m. from a third party.  On 5 November Smith informed Kennard of this and of his belief that the deal would be done with the third party at $19 m. and asked Kennard to consider his position.  On 6 November Kennard emailed: “I guess we should revert to the mechanism in the Management Agreement”.
  • On 6 November Smith signed and returned the offer to purchase to the third party, altering the price to $19 m., but stating that it was subject to his obligations to Kennard or KSM.
  • On 9 November Smith informed Kennard that he had received an offer at $19 m., that he had instructed solicitors to prepare contracts, and asked Kennard to advise his position. Kennard replied, saying: “Thanks Les.  Send it to us when its ready.”
  • On 10 November Kennard advised Smith that his company would not buy the Cheltenham property.
  • On 13 November Kennard instructed his solicitors to caveat over the property, leaving it to them to prepare the caveat documentation. The solicitors lodged a caveat by KSM prohibiting registration of any dealings with the property and claiming a “Freehold Estate”.
  • On 8 December Smith emailed Kennard that the third party had now also offered to purchase the Cheltenham property, also advising the gross offer for both properties, and stating “It is extremely important to the company to deal with both assets ….”, and “please advise what you would like to do in regards both properties”.
  • On 10 December Kennard sought the sale contract for both properties and stated

    “We should follow the process agreed and in accordance with the Right of Refusal outlined in the management agreement. …”

  • Smith did not provide to any contract to Kennard but on 23 December 187SR and GDM respectively agreed to sell the property and Business to the third party.
  • On 24 December Smith asked Kennard to remove the caveat. KSM alleged that it was a willing buyer for the property at $19m. and sought a written offer from 187SR in accordance with the 2015 agreement.  Dispute then arose about whether 187SR was required to make this offer, or whether any offer would require KSM to purchase both properties.  Then contracts were provided by 187SR and GDM, KSM raised whether it was being offered terms identical to those offered to the third party, KSM purported to accept the offers, argument erupted over whether acceptance was too late, and on 10 February KSM removed the caveat.  The sale to third party was completed on 19 February 2021.
  • 187SR sued KSM claiming compensation under the Transfer of Land Act s. 118.  It contended that the caveat was lodged without reasonable cause and delayed the completion of the sale to the third party giving rise to additional amounts it had to pay to its financier.

The Transfer of Land Act s. 118 provided:

Any person lodging with the Registrar without reasonable cause any caveat under this Act shall be liable to make to any person who sustains damage thereby such compensation as a court deems just and orders.

KSM contended that because the “first and last right of refusal” granted by 187SR in the 2015 agreement was expressed to apply for 2 years after its end, it remained operative in 2020, because the 2015 agreement was only superseded by the 2019 agreement in December 2019, thereby giving it a caveatable interest.

His Honour accepted Kennard’s evidence that he believed that KSM had a right of first refusal and that it had not been complied with. 

GDM paid to KSM, under sufferance, the performance incentive fee claimed by KSM.  This did not account for rent payable by GDM to 187SR, but if this rent was to be taken into account in determining the EBITDA, then no performance incentive fee was payable.  GDM sued KSM for return of the performance incentive fee.  The proceedings were heard together.

Gorton J. dismissed the application under s. 118 and ordered the return of the performance incentive fee, holding –    

  1. Smith was acting on behalf of both 187SR and GDM when he participated in the exchanges preceding the 2019 agreement.  Conceptually, these communications, together with the signing of the 2019 agreement and the subsequent management of the Business by KSM, revealed that an agreement was reached that included Smith on behalf of 187SR agreeing that the 2015 agreement would be wholly discharged and replaced by the 2019 agreement.  This conclusion was compelled by: the change in the entity that was to own the business; the communications preceding the 2019 agreement; the text of the 2019 agreement, in particular the expression that it “supersedes” the 2015 agreement and the backdating of the 2019 agreement to 1 September 2015 and expressing that it was to commence from that date. [15], [20], [21]
  2. Accordingly from the time of execution of the 2019 agreement the parties were discharged from all obligations under the 2015 agreement, including any obligations imposed on 187SR by the 2015 agreement expressed to survive its termination. [20]-[22]
  3. Accordingly, although as at December 2020 GDM was obliged to give KSM a “first and last right of refusal” if it wished to sell the business, 187SR was not so obliged as regards sale of the property, whereby KSM did not have a caveatable interest. [23], [24]
  4. The test whether the caveat was lodged “without reasonable cause” within the meaning of s. 118 was often re-expressed as whether the caveator did not have an honest belief, based on reasonable grounds, that it had a caveatable interest. The re-expressed test sat comfortably with the text of s. 118 where, although there was some factual uncertainty, the legal consequences were otherwise straightforward.  However, it sat less comfortably where there was, as here, a complex legal dispute as to whether a first and last right of refusal, that the parties believed existed, was legally sufficient to give rise to a caveatable interest: it did not easily apply where a caveator had an honest belief as to a set of facts the legal consequences of which arguably did, but might not, give rise to a caveatable interest.  If the caveator believed that he or she probably had a caveatable interest, but recognised that the position was uncertain, was that an honest belief in a caveatable interest?   In these circumstances, it was preferable to return to the text of the statute: was the caveat lodged “without reasonable cause”?  The fact that a caveat might be lodged with reasonable cause yet to protect an uncertain interest was apparent from previous authority. [25], [28], [29]
  5. Both parties believed that there was a contractual right of first refusal exercisable against 187SR, and through Smith 187SR incorrectly believed that it had complied with its obligations. [26], [27], [32]-[34], [37]
  6. If, however, contrary to his Honour’s view but nonetheless believed to be so by the parties, 187SR had still contractually been bound to make KSM an offer of first refusal, this right would not per se give rise to an equitable interest because it did not, of itself, give the holder the right to call for a conveyance. No interest would arise if the owner was still absolutely free to sell or not. [39]
  7. However, if a right of first refusal was expressed in positive terms that applied when a contingency was satisfied, then equity would ordinarily intervene once the contingency was satisfied. 187SR’s argument that cl. 16 of the 2015 agreement did not impose a positive obligation on it, on the satisfaction of a contingency, to make an offer to KSM, but merely prevented it from selling to anyone else unless it first made an offer to KSM, had force but the position was not without difficulty.  It was, at least, well arguable that if 187SR were to make an offer to sell the property, then it was positively obliged to make an offer on those terms also to KSM.  It was at least arguable that by signing the 6 November 2020 offer and manifesting a clear intention to sell the property on those terms, or by signing the 23 December 2020 agreements, both in circumstances where 187SR had informed the third party that KSM had a right of first refusal, 187SR fell under an enforceable contractual obligation to make an offer in those terms to KSM.  On balance, if the 2015 agreement had applied, a court probably would have ordered 187SR to offer to sell the properties to KSM on the terms contained in the 23 December 2020 intertwined agreements.  However, the matter was not straightforward. [27], [39], [40], [42]-[46]
  8. For the reasons set out above, by the time the caveat was lodged, having regard to the complexity of the legal argument as to whether cl. 16 would give rise to a caveatable interest, his Honour was not satisfied that KSM lodged the caveat without reasonable cause. It had reasonable cause. [47], [48], [52]
  9. Not detracting from this conclusion was that the caveat precluded all dealings with the property and claimed a freehold interest. If KSM was entitled to lodge a caveat, it was entitled to lodge one that precluded any dealings.  As to claiming a “freehold estate”, the right that KSM was asserting was the equitable right to obtain the freehold on a sale, and although perhaps it would have been more precise to claim a conditional right to purchase under the contract, this imprecision was insufficient to establish lack of reasonable cause. [49]
  10. Although it may be correct, as the caveat was lodged by KSM’s solicitors, to consider that KSM’s solicitors’ mind that was the mind of KSM for the purpose of determining reasonable grounds, even so, and even on the basis that the person preparing and lodging the document had legal training, the caveat was not lodged without reasonable cause. [50]
  11. Further, even if the interest asserted or wording used in the caveat rendered the caveat not lodged with reasonable cause, it would not be “just” to award 187SR any compensation unless it could be shown that this assertion or use caused any loss that would not have been caused anyway if the “right” interest were asserted or wording was used. This was not proved. [50], [65]
  12. The caveat was also not lodged prematurely. But in any event, by the time that the caveat interfered with 187SR’s intentions and, as 187SR alleged caused it loss, 187SR had signed the offers.  In reality, it was probably the maintenance of a caveat at a time when someone tried to register an instrument that caused loss, rather than the “lodging” of the caveat.  In any event, it would not be “just” for the purposes of s. 118 to order that a party pay compensation because a caveat was lodged prematurely if, by the time the caveat became a source of loss, there was a proper basis for its lodgement. [51], [65]
  13. Accordingly, 187SR’s claim for compensation under s. 118 failed. But, if this was incorrect, the process of determining compensation involved two steps: first to ascertain a date by which, but for the caveat, the sale of the business would have been completed; second to ascertain what loss KSM suffered, if any, by reason of the delay between that date and 19 February 2021 being the date of completion of the sale.  If there had been no caveat settlement would have taken place by 22 January 2021 and the loss from delay would have been $274,658 being the increased amount that 187SR had to pay to its financier. [52]-[54], [60], [63], [64]
  14. GDM was entitled to return of the “performance incentive fee” because it was not payable under the terms of the 2019 agreement. [79]

  Philip H. Barton

          Owen Dixon Chambers West

        Wednesday, March 22, 2023

 

Blog 68. Court of Appeal allows appeal by caveator on ground of arguable contract of sale.

Ek v Red Eagle International Pty Ltd (atf Chunan Bai Hybrid Unit Trust) [2022] VSCA 254, Niall and Kennedy JJA., (18 November 2022) 

The facts were –

  • The respondent (Red Eagle) was registered proprietor of three adjoining buildings at 7 – 13 Carrington Road, Box Hill (the Properties).  Ms Cherry Pai was a director of Red Eagle.  In 2021 and early 2022 she negotiated with the applicant (Jade) concerning their sale.  Jade received a draft contract of sale and s. 32 Statement.  She later paid $3,000 to Red Eagle.
  • At a meeting between Cherry and Jade on 14 June 2022 a price of $12.15 m. was proposed and a ‘particulars of sale’ page was used to write down the discussion.  Jade subsequently texted Cherry a photo of the completed particulars which included that price and a handwritten amendment by Jade of the address, from ‘7 – 13 Carrington Road Box Hill’ to ‘7 – 15 Carrington Road, Box Hill’ (the ‘first particulars’).  However, Cherry subsequently explained that shop 15 was not on the title and so not for sale.
  • On 9 July 2022 Jade and Cherry met at Jade’s dental clinic.  Notwithstanding conflicting evidence of what occurred at this meeting it was undisputed that a revised ‘particulars of sale’ dated 9 July 2022 (the ‘9 July Particulars’) came into existence.  This recorded the following, with two handwritten notes (denoted NB)–

    Vendor: Red Eagle International Pty Ltd
    Purchaser: Jade Ek & or Nominee
    Street Address: 7 – 13 15 Carrington Road Box Hill 3128
    Purchase price: $11,850,000.00
    Deposit: $355,500.00 3 – 5% or ($592,500 @ 5%)
    Balance: $11,494,500.00 (9 – 12 months)
    N/B 3 – 5% Due 10/10/2022
    N/B On Market Value 2 yrs after settlement if Property appreciate (Jade) will give 300k

The amounts recorded for price, deposit and the balance were in Jade’s handwriting over whiteout.  Jade’s initials also appeared proximate to the entries of purchaser, street address, ‘3 – 5%’, and the notes.  At its bottom Jade’s signature appeared next to the Chinese characters for ‘purchaser’ (next to a date of 9 July 2022) and Cherry’s signature appeared next to the Chinese characters for ‘vendor’.

  • On 9 July Jade made a further payment of $12,500 to Cherry, and ultimately paid a total of $45,500 between June and 1 August (which she asserted was part payment of the deposit).
  • On 24 July 2022 Red Eagle entered into a contract of sale of the Properties with a new purchaser, Jun Chen, with settlement on 24 October 2022.  Cherry gave evidence that a 10% deposit was paid.  That contract was not in evidence, nor did Jun Chen give evidence.
  • On 2 August 2022 Jade caveated relying on an agreement with the registered proprietor dated 9 July 2022.
  • In September the net deposit paid by Jun Chen was released to Red Eagle and it used $62,750 of it to pay consulting fees related to the sale to Jun Chen.
  • Red Eagle applied to the County Court under the Transfer of Land Act s. 90(3) for removal of the caveat.  Cherry deposed that: at the 9 July meeting she and her husband insisted on a price of $12.15 m.; ‘we signed’ at the bottom of the first particulars of sale next to the Chinese character meaning vendor (which showed her intention to sell at $12.15 m.) and Jade signed the bottom of the page next to the Chinese character for purchaser; Jade then took the signed document back to her office and amended it in handwriting including the price and the deposit, then initialled the changes, and added the handwritten notes; after this Jade presented the amended page to Cherry who refused the amendments.
  • Jade deposed that while she was initially prepared to pay $12.15 m., this altered on realizing that Red Eagle could not sell 15 Carrington Road.  She deposed that: on 9 July she met with Cherry and Cherry’s husband; Jade said to Cherry that she was initially prepared to offer $12.15 m. for “the Carrington Properties” but that after discussions with her son, who was investing with her, we would only pay $11.85 m.; Cherry asked if she would consider paying her $300,000 if the Carrington Properties increased in value of at least that amount, to which Jade agreed; Cherry wanted Jade to sign that day; she told Cherry they could meet again later to sign a clean copy as the copy Jade had contained her previous offer; Jade then remembered she had electronic access to the one page she had sent to Cherry previously by sms, and so they went to her office and arranged for her staff to print it out; Cherry whited out the details and asked Jade to complete the price and other details, which she did except for the Chinese writing appearing at the bottom, which was done by Cherry; she asked Cherry what that writing was and she said it was “buyer” and “seller”; Jade signed where the buyer appeared and wrote the date “9/7/2022”; Cherry signed where the seller appeared; Jade believed that they had reached a concluded agreement.
  • Jade undertook to the court to pay 5% of $11.85 m. (in addition to amounts already paid).
  • On 21 October a County Court judge ordered Jade to remove the caveat by 4 November.  The judge reasoned inter alia: she reached her conclusion on a consideration of the particulars of sale, and so was not required to resolve disputed facts or matters of credit; the indicia of objective intention available from a consideration of the face of the particulars of sale did not support the argument that the parties intended the document to be a binding contract; these indicia included the absence of Cherry’s initials, including against changes to the price and deposit; at trial the caveator would have to establish that the amendments were agreed to by Red Eagle and in view of this lack of initialling Jade’s prima facie case in this regard was weak; the submission that it was left to the purchaser to decide whether to pay a deposit of 3%, 4%, 5% or something in between was not supported on the face of the document – there was nothing to indicate at whose election the amount of the deposit within that range can be decided – so the prima facie case on certainty in this regard was weak; as to the time for payment of the balance of price, a range was provided but without indication of who decided when; she rejected the contention that the terms were agreed but it was simply that the mechanism was not; it was objectively apparent from the existence of unresolved matters on the face of the document that the argument that the document was a final enforceable agreement was weak.
  • Jade filed an application for leave to appeal.  Her proposed grounds included first that the judge erred in finding that her prima facie case of an interest in land arising from an enforceable contract of sale was weak.  The particulars of this ground included that the judge erred by considering that the strength of the prima facie case was diminished by: (a) the term specifying the deposit as 3–5% of the price; (b) the term fixing settlement as 9 – 12 months after entry into the contract; (e) the fact that handwritten notations on the agreement had only been initialled by the purchaser and not on behalf of the vendor.
  • The Court of Appeal stayed the County Court order.

The Court of Appeal gave leave to appeal, allowed the appeal and dismissed the application under s. 90(3), holding –

  1. Because the court’s power under s. 90(3) was discretionary an applicant for leave to appeal against an exercise of that discretion must establish an error of the kind identified in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499. [22]
  2. The critical issue was whether the parties signed the 9 July Particulars (which include a revised price of $11.85 m.) or the (earlier) first particulars. This could only be resolved at trial. [16]
  3. The judge hearing the caveat removal application was not required to consider that a trial judge might consider the absence of Cherry’s initials in determining whether Cherry had really executed the 9 July Particulars. Not only was this not required, it was ordinarily inappropriate for a judge to enter into resolution of the underlying factual dispute on this sort of application, particularly where this turned on findings on credit of witnesses.  Accordingly, the judge was not in a position to assess the key issue of whether the parties signed the 9 July Particulars or the first particulars.  The judge had endeavoured to reach a finding about the strength of the key issue in the case and in so doing had considered the absence of Cherry’s initials without regard to the other evidence. [25]-[26]
  4. Even if the judge was in a position to assess the merits of the key issue, there could be no assessment on a prima facie basis, or otherwise, by only having regard to one isolated piece of evidence. The judge thereby erred in her treatment of the evidence that the 9 July Particulars had only been initialled by the purchaser. [27]
  5. The judge’s reasoning that the ranges for the deposit (3% – 5%) and settlement date (9 – 12 months) meant that the prima facie case on certainty was ‘weak’, because there were ‘unresolved matters’, was also flawed. A contract was only uncertain if the court could not put any definite meaning on it.  The objection that one party was left to choose whether to perform a contract was distinguishable from the situation where the contract gave one party choice of or discretion in the manner of performance.  The identification of the person given the choice to determine the figure within the range specified for the deposit or time of settlement was capable of resolution, consistent with the general approach of upholding contracts: there was authority, for example, that it is the promisor who usually had the right to elect which of the methods of performance to choose (although this may need modification as regards time for settlement, given this depended on mutual obligations).  Issues of contractual construction of the 9 July Particulars were ultimately to be determined by the trial judge, but this said nothing about whether the 9 July Particulars gave rise to a binding contract in the first place. [28], [29], [33], [34]
  6. Each of the absence of Cherry’s initials and the specification of the deposit and time of settlement ranges played a significant, if not determinative, role in the judge’s assessment of the prima facie case. They also affected the judge’s assessment of the balance of convenience.  Accordingly grounds 1(a), (b) and (e) were sustained. [36]-[37]
  7. Given the urgency of the case and the Court of Appeal having before it the evidence and submissions that were before the judge, it was appropriate for the Court to exercise afresh the discretion under s. 90(3). [39]
  8. For the reasons given in holding number 5 Red Eagle’s submissions concerning failure to agree on the deposit and settlement date were unmeritorious. Also unmeritorious was its submission that there was a failure to agree on the mechanism for determining market value to ascertain whether the additional $300,000 was payable. Courts were routinely called upon to determine the market value of properties and would readily supply machinery when parties failed to state the basis for determining value. [40]-[41]
  9. As to any argument about reliance on material which post-dated the contract, post-contractual conduct could in limited circumstances be admissible on whether the parties intended a contract to be binding. There was conflicting material which could only be tested at trial. [42]
  10. In summation, the 9 July Particulars raised a serious question to be tried of whether Jade had the interest claimed. [43]
  11. The balance of convenience favoured maintenance of the caveat having regard to: evidence that available properties of this nature in this location were very rare; evidence of Jade’s business needs; an assessment of the interests of the other purchaser; the vendor dissipating part of the released deposit to third parties (to which Jade’s undertaking as to damages was relevant); Jade’s undertaking to pay an amount equal to 5% of $11.85 m. and to prosecute a proceeding for specific performance. [44], [45], [47], [48]
  12. Accordingly, although the matter was finely balanced, the lower risk of injustice was to maintain the caveat. [49]

 

Philip H. Barton

Owen Dixon Chambers West

Tuesday, March 14, 2023

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