Legal Research
Cases
Doolkoora Pty Ltd v Stumpy Gully Holdings Pty Ltd

Doolkoora Pty Ltd v Stumpy Gully Holdings Pty Ltd

Case [2024] VSC 155 29 March 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2022 02243

DOOLKOORA PTY LTD (ACN 606 167 444)	First Appellant
PENINSULA PROPERTY GROUP AUST PTY LTD (ACN 620 720 130)	Second Appellant
v
STUMPY GULLY HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 614 628 616)	Respondent

-----

JUDGE:	Gray J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 and 28 July 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 March 2024; revised 10 April 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Doolkoora Pty Ltd & Anor v Stumpy Gully Holdings Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 155

---

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS — Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 s 148 — Property Law Act 1958 ss 19A, 28A, 53, 222, 225, 228 — Sale or division of land — Application by co-owner of land — Claim of tenancy in common in equity by reason of resulting trust — Garnett v Jessop [2012] VCAT 156 — VCAT jurisdiction — Presumption of resulting trust from contributions to purchase — No pre-existing relationship between contributors to the purchase — Presumption of resulting trust not precluded, displaced or rebutted by VCAT’s findings about the actual intentions of the contributors — Claim of fixed-term lease subject to Retail Leases Act 2003 — Finding of ostensible authority — Finding of oral agreement to enter into fixed-term lease — Errors of law in understanding of applicable principles and application to facts.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellants	S Stuckey KC M Sharkey A Mobrici	DSA Law
For the Respondent	D Williams KC J Oswald-Jacobs	Carroll Goldsmith Lawyers

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1

B. The facts.......................................................................................................................................... 3

C. The VCAT decision.................................................................................................................... 10

D. The application for leave to appeal to this Court................................................................. 15

E. Consideration............................................................................................................................... 18

Ground 1: Did VCAT have jurisdiction to make orders under PLA pt IV?....................... 18
The legislation.................................................................................................................... 19
Appellants’ notice of appeal............................................................................................ 23
Key concepts....................................................................................................................... 23
Appellants’ contentions.................................................................................................... 25
Previous consideration..................................................................................................... 28
Analysis............................................................................................................................... 33
Principles of statutory interpretation................................................................ 33
Preliminary points................................................................................................ 34
Flaws in the appellants’ contentions................................................................. 35
Conclusion — VCAT had jurisdiction............................................................... 41

Introduction to questions/grounds 2–5.................................................................................. 42
Ground 2: Did VCAT’s findings preclude a presumption of resulting trust from arising? 42
Appellants’ contentions.................................................................................................... 43
VCAT’s approach.............................................................................................................. 44
Applicable principles........................................................................................................ 45
Calverley................................................................................................................ 46
Vlahos..................................................................................................................... 46
Bosanac.................................................................................................................. 48
Analysis............................................................................................................................... 51

Ground 3: Did VCAT’s findings displace or rebut any such presumption?...................... 58
Appellants’ contentions.................................................................................................... 59
Applicable principles........................................................................................................ 60
Analysis............................................................................................................................... 60
Did VCAT err in its approach by addressing sub-issues?............................. 61
Is common intention and a direct relationship required?.............................. 62
Did VCAT fail to consider the lack of a relevant relationship, common goals, or common intention?............................................................................................. 62
Did VCAT err by failing to consider SGH’s intention at the time of its payments?................................................................................................................................ 65
Did VCAT err in failing to find the presumption rebutted on the ground that there was no common intention?................................................................................ 67

Ground 4: Did VCAT err in imputing the solicitor’s knowledge to the appellants?........ 67
Appellants’ contentions.................................................................................................... 68
VCAT’s approach.............................................................................................................. 68
Is ground 4…

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.

Continue reading Doolkoora Pty Ltd v Stumpy Gully Holdings Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Doolkoora Pty Ltd v Stumpy Gully Holdings Pty Ltd [2024] VSC 155
Case: [2024] VSC 155
Decision Date: 29 March 2024; revised 10 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Doolkoora Pty Ltd, a co-owner of land, brought an application against Stumpy Gully Holdings Pty Ltd, another co-owner, to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). The dispute centred around the nature of their ownership of the land and whether there was a tenancy in common in equity by reason of a resulting trust. Additionally, Doolkoora sought to establish a fixed-term lease under the Retail Leases Act 2003.

The court was tasked with determining the applicability of a resulting trust in light of the parties’ contributions to the purchase of the land. This involved assessing whether the presumption of a resulting trust was precluded, displaced, or rebutted by the actual intentions of the contributors. Furthermore, the court needed to ascertain if there was an ostensible authority for the creation of a fixed-term lease and if there was an oral agreement to enter into such a lease. The determination of these issues hinged on the proper understanding and application of relevant legal principles to the facts of the case.

The court found that the presumption of a resulting trust was not precluded, displaced, or rebutted by VCAT’s findings about the actual intentions of the contributors. It was held that VCAT erred in its understanding and application of the applicable principles. The court found that there was an ostensible authority for the creation of a fixed-term lease and that there was an oral agreement to enter into such a lease. Consequently, the court quashed the decision of VCAT and remitted the matter for rehearing.

The final orders included the quashing of the VCAT decision and the matter being remitted for rehearing, taking into account the proper legal principles and the findings regarding the resulting trust and the fixed-term lease.

Orders