Ciccone v Ark Projects Pty Ltd

In the matter of Ciccone v Ark Projects Pty Ltd, the Supreme Court of Victoria was tasked with determining the relief to be granted to the vendor, Ark Projects Pty Ltd, after rescinding a contract for the sale of land. The dispute centred around the calculation of interest and damages, particularly in relation to the interest rate applicable from the date of discharge of the contract until judgment. Ark sought interest on the unpaid deposit and on the sale price of the property, arguing that the interest should be calculated at a rate prescribed by the Penalty Interest Rates Act 1983. The vendor argued that the interest claimed was in excess of market rates, and that the interest on the sale price should not be allowed as it would represent damages for loss of money.

The court was required to decide whether interest should be awarded under section 60(1) of the Supreme Court Act, which provides for damages in the nature of interest from the commencement of the proceeding to judgment. The key issues were whether Ark had given evidence regarding the use to which the sale proceeds may have been put and whether the interest claimed was excessive compared to market rates. The court noted that Ark did not lead evidence to establish any particular lost opportunity in the use of the sale proceeds. However, the court held that it was appropriate to allow interest at the rate prescribed under the Penalty Interest Rates Act, as there was no evidence to suggest that a different rate should be applied in this case.

The court concluded that it was appropriate to allow interest at the rate prescribed under the Penalty Interest Rates Act. The court rejected the argument that the interest claimed was excessive, finding no evidence to support this contention. The court held that it was not appropriate to order an inquiry into the matter and that the interest rate prescribed under the Penalty Interest Rates Act was suitable in the circumstances of this case. The court allowed interest at the prescribed rate from the date of discharge of the contract until judgment.

The final orders of the court included an award of interest at the rate prescribed by the Penalty Interest Rates Act from 27 September 1995 to the date of judgment. The court also noted that Ark had not paid the amount of $5,760 owed to Stockdale and Leggo, but this did not affect the court’s decision on the interest claim. The court’s decision affirmed the appropriateness of awarding interest under section 60(1) of the Supreme Court Act, subject to the rate prescribed by the Penalty Interest Rates Act.