Eliana Construction v Ramani - [2020] VSC 115

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
PROPERTY LIST

Not Restricted

S ECI 2018 01219

ELIANA CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPING GROUP PTY LTD (in liquidation)	Plaintiff
v
NAZIM NICK RAMANI and MYNEVER RAMANI	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Mukhtar AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 June 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 March 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Eliana Construction v Ramani
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 115

---

COURTS AND TRIBUNALS ― Jurisdiction of VCAT to resolve domestic building dispute under Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic) ― Initial relationship of builder and proprietor under a domestic building contract ― Performance of works ― Rendering of progress claims and invoices for work and labour ― Accrual of debts owing by owner to builder — Acknowledgment of fixed debt by owner in separate written ‘loan’ agreement creating new obligation to pay debt and give security over land for obligation to pay — Default by owner in payment of ‘debt’ ― Action by owner for enforcement of ‘loan‘ agreement and security — Court obliged by statute to stay action ‘arising wholly or predominantly from a domestic building dispute’ — Application by owner to stay Supreme Court action — Characterisation of ‘loan agreement’ — Creation of new and different legal relationship — Predominant issue whether loan agreement vitiable in equity as an unconscionable or catching bargain — Meaning of ‘domestic building contract’ and ‘domestic building dispute’ ― Meaning of ‘in relation to’ — Stay application refused — Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic) ss 53, 54, 57

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	M McNamara	White Cleland Pty Ltd
For the First and Second Defendants	P Duggan	De Marco Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

One of the stated objects of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (‘the Act’) is ‘to enable disputes involving domestic building work to be resolved as quickly, as efficiently and as cheaply as possible in a way that is fair to both builders and building owners’.[1] One of the main purposes of the Act is ‘to provide for the resolution of domestic building disputes and other matters by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal’.[2] As for remedies, s 53(1) of the Act says that ‘VCAT may make any order it considers fair to resolve a domestic building dispute’. That is stated to include the power to make orders for the payment of money, and to make non-monetary orders to vary any term of a domestic building contract and to ‘declare void any unjust term of a domestic building contract, or otherwise vary a domestic building contract to avoid injustice’.[3]
[1]s 4(a) of the Act.
[2]Ibid, s 1(b).
[3]Ibid, s 53(2) (c) and (d).

The Tribunal is not a court of law but its role as the chief forum in domestic building disputes is given strong practical recognition in s 57 which compels a stay of any court action brought over a domestic building dispute. It states:

(1)This section applies if a person starts any…

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 Eliana Construction v Ramani

Details

AGLC: Eliana Construction v Ramani [2020] VSC 115
Case: [2020] VSC 115
Decision Date: 13 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Eliana Construction Pty Ltd, a builder, brought an action against its client, Mr Ramani, in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute centred around a domestic building contract, where the builder claimed that Mr Ramani had not fulfilled his contractual obligations by failing to make payments for work completed. Following this, Mr Ramani entered into a separate agreement, a 'loan' agreement, acknowledging the outstanding debt and providing security over his land to guarantee repayment. Mr Ramani subsequently sought to enforce this 'loan' agreement in the Supreme Court, but Eliana Construction argued that the court should stay the proceedings under the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic). The primary issue before the court was whether the 'loan' agreement could be considered a new legal relationship or if it was an extension of the original domestic building contract. A secondary issue was whether the 'loan' agreement was unconscionable or amounted to a catching bargain.

The court held that the 'loan' agreement was a new legal relationship, distinct from the original domestic building contract. The court found that the 'loan' agreement was not unconscionable or a catching bargain, as it was a consensual arrangement entered into by both parties with full knowledge of the circumstances. The court emphasised that the predominant issue in the dispute was the enforcement of the 'loan' agreement, which was clearly related to the domestic building contract. Therefore, the court declined to stay the proceedings and found that the dispute was predominantly related to the domestic building contract, warranting the application of the statutory stay provisions. Consequently, the court ruled that the stay application should be refused, allowing the Supreme Court action to proceed.

The court's decision clarified the scope of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic) and its application to disputes arising from domestic building contracts. The court emphasised that the predominant issue in the dispute must be related to the domestic building contract for the statutory stay provisions to apply. Additionally, the court highlighted the importance of distinguishing between different legal relationships and agreements in the context of domestic building disputes. This case serves as a reminder for parties involved in domestic building disputes to carefully consider the implications of entering into separate agreements and the potential impact on the enforceability of those agreements.

Orders