Bell v Knight 34 Langdon Road Pty Ltd - [2022] VSC 497

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION

PROPERTY LIST

S ECI 2020 04403

BETWEEN:

JILL AVIVA BELL & ANOR (according to the attached Schedule)	Plaintiffs
v
KNIGHT 34 LANGDON ROAD PTY LTD (ACN 613 271 079) & ORS (according to the attached Schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Daly AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 July 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 August 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Bell v Knight 34 Langdon Road Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 497

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for summary enforcement of a settlement agreement by parties to resolve a civil proceeding regarding the purchase of an apartment “off‑the‑plan” – Roberts v Gippsland Agricultural & Earth Moving Contracting Co Pty Ltd [1956] VLR 555 referred to and applied – Whether extraneous matters involved in enforcement, and whether there are substantial questions to be determined – Court must be positively satisfied that justice can be done – Seachange Management Pty Ltd v Pital Business Pty Ltd (2009) 23 VR 396 referred to and applied.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - Whether parties mutually abandoned the settlement agreement - Whether plaintiffs elected to not enforce the settlement agreement – Whether plaintiffs should be confined to a claim in damages -– Whether defences have any real prospect of success, whether appropriate to order specific performance, whether third parties will be prejudiced or suffer undue hardship and whether damages are an adequate remedy - Settlement agreement may be enforced where another claim in the proceeding will remain – Agreement not mutually abandoned merely due to the wishes of one party and where there is evidence of multiple attempts at settlement – Damages generally not an adequate remedy where outstanding obligations under settlement agreement involves payment for and transfer of real property - Hardship to third parties not caused by the enforcement of settlement agreement or the conduct of plaintiffs - Settlement agreement enforced and ancillary orders granted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr M W Wise QC with Mr B Petrie	K&L Gates
For the First and Seventh Defendants	Mr D J Williams AM QC with Mr N Elias	Welner Lawyers
For the Ninth Defendant	Ms H Aprile	Corrs Chambers Westgarth

HER HONOUR:

These reasons concern an application by the plaintiffs in this proceeding, Dr Jill Bell and Dr Roger Bell (‘the Bells’) to enforce an agreement reached between them and the first to sixth defendants in this proceeding (‘original defendants’)[1] who are property developers and builders. The agreement, which was documented in a deed dated 16 April 2021 (‘settlement agreement’), compromised what were then the main issues in the proceeding (‘underlying dispute’), but the parties have not completed all of their obligations under the settlement agreement. In particular, the parties have failed to give effect to a term of the settlement agreement which requires a residential property in Caulfield North (‘apartment’) to be transferred by the first defendant (‘Knight 34’) to the Bells following the performance of the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bell v Knight 34 Langdon Road Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] VSC 497
Decision Date: 26 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bell v Knight 34 Langdon Road Pty Ltd, the plaintiffs sought summary enforcement of a settlement agreement to resolve a civil proceeding related to the purchase of an apartment off-the-plan. The defendants opposed the enforcement of the agreement, arguing that the plaintiffs had not enforced the agreement for an unreasonable period and that damages were an adequate remedy. The court was required to determine whether the settlement agreement had been mutually abandoned, whether the plaintiffs had elected not to enforce it, and whether the defendants' defenses had any real prospect of success.

The court examined the principles established in Roberts v Gippsland Agricultural & Earth Moving Contracting Co Pty Ltd and Seachange Management Pty Ltd v Pital Business Pty Ltd. It found that the settlement agreement had not been mutually abandoned merely due to the wishes of one party and that there was evidence of multiple attempts at settlement. The court also noted that damages were generally not an adequate remedy where outstanding obligations under the settlement agreement involved the payment for and transfer of real property. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not elected not to enforce the agreement and that the defendants' defenses had no real prospect of success. Furthermore, the court found that the enforcement of the settlement agreement would not cause hardship to third parties.

Based on its findings, the court granted the plaintiffs' application for summary enforcement of the settlement agreement and made ancillary orders. The court found that the settlement agreement was enforceable, and the defendants were ordered to transfer the apartment to the plaintiffs and pay the remaining purchase price. The court also noted that the plaintiffs' claim for damages would remain, and the defendants' right to appeal was reserved. The court's decision highlights the importance of enforcing settlement agreements where possible, particularly in cases involving real property transactions.

Orders