Category: Injunction to protect priority

Blog 47.  No contract of sale – No caveatable interest

In Hazelwood v Mercurio & Ors [2021] VSC 362 (22 June 2021) Daly AsJ –

  • primarily deals with an agent lacking authority to conclude a binding contract on behalf of a vendor (similar to the lack of authority of a solicitor: Leahy v Javni [2020] VSC 680 at [122]);
  • notes that, if a document existed whereby the vendor expressly authorised the agent to execute the contract on her behalf, it would be a breach of the Civil Procedure Act not to disclose it;
  • distinguishes English authority on whether an exchange of emails can comply with the Statute of Frauds;
  • held that if the caveators had established a binding contract the balance of convenience would have favoured them;
  • stayed the removal of caveat for 7 days to enable the caveators to apply for an injunction restraining completion of a further sale based on an alleged estoppel.

The facts were –

  • The plaintiff vendor gave an Exclusive Sale Authority to an agent (whose employee was Campbell) to market an apartment and two separately titled car parking spaces in the Melbourne CBD.  The Authority provided that the agent would advertise, market and sell the property and that “sold” meant (in normal circumstances) “the result of obtaining a binding offer”.  Clause 13 also authorised the agent to –
    • instruct a legal practitioner or conveyancer to prepare a section 32 statement, contract of sale, agree the content of either document and advise and agree on other amendments or additions to either document;
    • fill-up a standard form contract or contract to record the sale as permitted by statute;
    • negotiate and, with the vendor’s approval, agree and record, or have the legal practitioner or conveyancer record, the final terms of, and obtain signatures to, the contract;
    • attend to contract exchange; receive the price and certain advice or notices; and make public certain information.
  • The caveators deposed that on about 11 February they made an unconditional offer to purchase the apartment and one car space for $750,000, with settlement within seven days. Campbell deposed that caveators imposed a very short deadline on the offer and that he conveyed it to the vendor.
  • The caveators deposed that on 16 February Campbell said that he had found a purchaser for the other space and that the vendor had accepted their offer.  Campbell disputed this, deposing that although he could not remember his exact words he had no intention of conveying that a sale had been completed until signing of a written agreement. 
  • The vendor deposed that Campbell told her that he had located a potential purchaser of the apartment and one car space and another purchaser of the second space, and that she instructed him to amend the documents accordingly.    
  • On 18 February Campbell emailed the caveators: stating that if they could “confirm the below points for me” he would start the paperwork.  The points were: whether they had a conveyancer; their full names and address; price $750,000 with a 10% deposit; as to time for settlement; solicitors’ details.  The email concluded: “New paperwork is getting drawn up at our end so nothing for you to do at this stage”.
  • The caveators provided full names, address, lawyer’s details, and stated that settlement would be on 12 March.  
  • On 24 February Campbell emailed an unsigned section 32 statement and contract.  His email stated that he had just received these documents and not yet reviewed them “so let me know any questions you have and I’ll work through them”.   The unsigned contract named the vendor, referred to the apartment and to particulars of title of one space, but omitted purchasers’ names, price and settlement date.  When a caveator queried this Campbell replied that he had “just hit send as soon as I received and so you could have your people quickly review it before signing”.
  • On being informed by Campbell that someone else had purchased the apartment and both spaces the defendants on 2 March caveated on the grounds of a “part performed oral agreement” with the plaintiff.   On 4 March this contract was executed.  The vendor issued a notice under s. 89A of the Transfer of Land Act (TLA), leading to the caveators issuing a Proceeding with a Statement of Claim.  The vendor issued this proceeding under s. 90(3).  Campbell deposed that on average more than ten apartments in the building would be marketed and sold in any year.

The Victorian Statute of Frauds provision, contained in the Instruments Act s. 126, provides that –

“An action must not be brought to charge a person … upon a contract for the sale … of an interest in land unless the agreement on which the action is brought, or a memorandum or note of the agreement, is 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”.

In their Statement of Claim the caveators alleged, in the alternative to breach of contract, that the vendor represented that she would sell the apartment to them, such that she was estopped from resiling from that representation. 

Daly AsJ held –

  1. Accepting, for present purposes at least, that –
    • to comply with s. 126 a contract of sale need not be contained in a single, self-contained document; [33]
    • a sender of an email, by identifying themselves as the sender, can be considered to have “signed” the email; [33]
    • section 126 should be construed as to accommodate “accepted contemporary business practices”; [34]

nonetheless, the vendor had not signed anything.  The only signatory was Campbell, who was authorised to market the apartment but not to enter a contract on behalf of the vendor.  In the Authority there was a material difference between the definition of “sell” and the phrase “endeavour to sell”.  More importantly, cl. 13 did not authorise the agent to sign any contract on behalf of the vendor, but contemplated personal execution by the vendor and purchaser. [35]-[39]

  1. What was stated in the foregoing holding was based on the non-existence of a document in which the vendor not only confirmed her acceptance of the caveators’ offer but also expressly authorised the agent to execute the contract on her behalf. If such a document existed, it should have been disclosed by the vendor in accordance with s. 26 of the Civil Procedure Act headed “Overarching obligation to disclose existence of documents”. [46]
  2. The English decision in Golden Ocean Group Ltd v Salgaocar Mining Industries PVT Ltdas to whether an exchange of emails between parties to a negotiation can constitute an agreement in writing for the purpose of the Statute of Frauds, was distinguishable.  There was a material difference between English and Victorian legislation. [40]-[44]
  3. If it had been necessary to consider the balance of convenience, this would have favoured the caveators because:
    • notwithstanding Campbell’s evidence that the sale of properties equivalent to the apartment was not rare, this apartment was particularly suitable to the caveators’ needs;
    • while the vendor not unreasonably considered that, absent an executed contract, she was free to deal with the apartment, and was now exposed to claims by the new purchaser, she entered this contract knowing that the caveators asserted that they had a contract with her and so she assumed the risk of this being established. [47]
  1. The caveators had not argued that their estoppel claim created an immediate equitable interest supporting a caveat. However this estoppel claim might found injunctive relief.  Accordingly the order for removal of the caveat would be stayed for 7 days to enable the caveators to apply for an injunction as they may be advised. [24], [48] – [50]

Philip H. Barton

Owen Dixon Chambers West

Friday, September 17, 2021

33. Unsuccessful claim for injunction under TLA s. 90(2) – Caveator merely an unsecured creditor with no caveatable interest.

In EZY Global Ltd v Miller Crescent Pty Ltd & Ors [2019] VSC 815 (11 December 2019) Croucher J. the facts were –

 

  • The plaintiff invested in a project for development of a property of which the first defendant was registered proprietor.   The plaintiff advanced funds pursuant to a loan agreement with the first defendant which included a term that the first defendant “must apply the Loan solely for the purpose of the development of” the property.  The plaintiff asserted that: it had advanced funds in reliance on the representation contained in this term, which was also made in conversations with its director; the effect of the loan agreement and the discussions between the parties was that the first defendant held the land on a common intention constructive trust for itself and the plaintiff in proportion to its indebtedness pursuant to the loan agreement; and the plaintiff’s director had relied on an oral assurance that it would be unnecessary for the plaintiff to take a security interest in writing, creating a lien arising from an estoppel.
  • The plaintiff alleged that there had been breaches of the loan agreement and had commenced a County Court proceeding seeking to enforce this and other loan agreements, also seeking declarations that it had an interest in this and other properties.
  • The plaintiff lodged a caveat.  The interest claimed was a freehold estate on the ground of the loan agreement.  It was also notified that the second defendant had lodged a mortgage for registration.  Within 30 days of notification it applied pursuant to s. 90(2) of the Transfer of Land Act for an order restraining the Registrar of Titles from lodging this mortgage or for similar relief.  Section 90(2) provided –

“If before the expiration of the said period of thirty days … the caveator … appears before a court and gives such undertaking or security or lodges such sum as the court considers sufficient to indemnify every person against any damage that may be sustained by reason of any disposition of the property being delayed, the court may direct the Registrar to delay registering any dealing with the land for a further period specified in the order, or may make such other order (and in either case such order as to costs) as is just”.

The plaintiff offered an undertaking as to damages.

The application failed on the following grounds –

1.   The application under s. 90(2) was to be determined on the following principles –

(a) the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case giving rise to a serious question to be tried as to whether it has a caveatable interest in the land; [4]

(b) the plaintiff must show that the balance of convenience favours the maintenance of the caveat and the prevention of the mortgage being registered (or that there should be such other order as is just). [4]

2.   The plaintiff had not established a prima facie case giving rise to a serious question to be tried that it had a caveatable interest in the land.  The loan agreement contained no charging clause and it was common ground on the evidence that there was to be no written security given for the loan.  The evidence did not support the existence of a constructive trust or lien.  The caveator was merely an unsecured lender. [5], [72]-[80]

Comment.

This was not the typical application by a registered proprietor under s. 90(3) for removal of a caveat but rather an application under s. 90(2) by the caveator to create the same outcome as if its caveat was upheld, to which the same principles applied (see 1 above) with an undertaking as to damages.   It appeared that the caveator took this course because it tacitly acknowledged that its caveat was defective in not claiming any equitable interest in the property ([47]-[48]).  It relied on TL Rentals Pty Ltd v Youth On Call Pty Ltd [2018] VSC 105 where an interlocutory injunction was obtained to protect the priority of an equitable mortgage (Blog 13).  However, unlike that case, it failed because it had no arguable interest in the land.

Philip H. Barton

Owen Dixon Chambers West

27 April 2020

13. Caveat lodged to protect priority of equitable mortgage but badly expressed – Caveat not amended but interlocutory injunction granted to protect priority

TL Rentals Pty Ltd v Youth on Call Pty Ltd and Ors [2018] VSC 105 (8 March 2018) Derham AsJ.

This interesting case demonstrates that a badly drawn caveat can be rescued

– not under the TLA caveat provisions but by an interlocutory injunction.

The case is also a good discussion of general caveat principles and priorities

between equitable interests

Katherine and Damian Shannon were the joint proprietors in equal shares of land mortgaged to a bank.

The chronology was –

12 October 2016  Plaintiff (TL) leases equipment to first defendant whose obligations are guaranteed by Katherine.  Guarantee provides that she mortgaged her interest in the land and would on request execute a registerable mortgage. 

12 December 2017 Lessee in default.  TL serves notices on it and Katherine seeking payment. 

21 December 2017 TL lodges caveat claiming a “freehold estate” pursuant to an agreement with the “registered proprietor(s)” dated 12 October 2016.

7 January 2018   Permanent Custodians Limited (PCL) enters loan agreement with the Shannons. 

22 January 2018  Relying on an old title search predating the caveat, PCL advances the funds due by paying out the existing mortgage with the balance to the Shannons.  Mortgage lodged for registration. 

23 January 2018  Pursuant to the Transfer of Land Act (TLA) s. 90(1) Registrar gives notice to TL of lodgment of an inconsistent dealing and that its caveat would expire in 30 days.

20 February 2018 TL commences proceeding claiming a declaration that it had an equitable mortgage or charge over Katherine’s interest in the land securing payment of the sum owed. 

21 February 2018 TL applies the court pursuant to TLA s. 90(2) for an injunction directing the Registrar to maintain the caveat until registration of a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff or further order.

22 February 2018 Interim court order directing the Registrar to delay registration of any dealing.  TL foreshadows application to amend caveat to limit it to a claim for an equitable mortgage over Katherine’s interest in the land.  

2 March 2018      Hearing.  TL abandons argument for amendment and maintenance of caveat but seeks amendment of summons to claim an interlocutory injunction to protect the priority of its mortgage against defeat by registration of PCL’s mortgage.

The TLA s. 90(2) in substance provided, a notice under s. 90(1) having been given, that if within a particular period the caveator appeared before a court, the court may direct the Registrar to delay registering any dealing with the land or make such other order as was just.  Section 90(3) provided that any person adversely affected by a caveat may bring proceedings for the removal of the caveat and the court may make such order as it thought fit.

Derham AsJ  held –

1.     An application under s. 90(3) was in the nature of a summary procedure and analogous to the determination of an interlocutory injunction.  The caveator had the burden of establishing a serious question to be tried that it had the estate or interest in land as claimed and that the balance of convenience favoured maintenance of the caveat until trial.  In an application under s. 90(2) the same burden rested on the caveator. [29]-[30]

2.     The interest or estate claimed in a caveat could probably be amended but only in special or exceptional circumstances, as it effectively substituted a different caveatable interest.  In this case it would have been substitution of a claim to a freehold estate in respect of the registered interests of both proprietors with a claim to an interest under an equitable mortgage granted by one proprietor. Although TL’s mortgage was not in registerable form it was entitled to an unregistered (equitable) proprietary interest over Katherine’s share of the land that was capable of supporting a caveat.  Whilst remaining unregistered it was an agreement to mortgage.  [9]-[10], [20], [31]

3.     TL was granted leave to amend its summons to claim an interlocutory injunction.  The caveat procedure was essentially a statutory injunction granted upon consideration of the same factors applied when granting interlocutory injunctions in equity. [34]-[36] 

4.     PCL was entitled by subrogation to the rights of the mortgagee (NAB) whose mortgage it had paid out.  This gave PCL priority over TL for this part of its loan.  Otherwise approximately $130,000 was secured by TL’s equitable mortgage and $271,000 by PCL’s equitable mortgage. The interest first in time would prevail but that may change where the prior equitable interest holder had so acted that it would be unconscionable if its interest were to prevail. However, mere failure by the prior holder to caveat was insufficient to postpone that interest, even where the subsequent interest has been acquired bona fide and for value without notice and on faith of the title.  The latter interest holder must show a change of position and prove detriment as a necessary element of any claim for postponement. [21]-[22], [44]

5.     It was not unconscionable for TL’s equitable mortgage to be afforded its usual priority.  PCL should have conducted title searches later than six weeks before advance of funds.  Further, having regard to evidence that the market value  of the property sufficed to cover all monies secured against it, PCL had not proved detriment if postponed. [23]-[25]

6.     There was accordingly at least a prima facie case that TL’s mortgage had priority.  Whether this prima facie priority would justify the restraint sought depended on: (a) the practical consequences likely to flow from the interlocutory order sought; (b) whether if the injunction was not granted the plaintiff would be likely to suffer injury for which damages would not be an adequate remedy; (c) whether the balance of convenience favoured the granting of an injunction, as to which the strength of the case on serious question to be tried was relevant; (d) whether other discretionary considerations militate against the grant of the injunction.  TL met these tests.  The grant of an injunction until trial carried the lower risk of injustice if it should turn out to have been wrong. [26], [33], [37]-[38], [46]-[48]

7.     Due to doubt whether TL could satisfy the undertaking as to damages required for an interlocutory injunction, it would be made a condition of the grant of the injunction that the ultimate holding company or another company in the same group join in giving the usual undertaking as to damages. [53]-[54]