Legal Research
Cases
Handberg v MIG Property Services Pty Ltd

Handberg v MIG Property Services Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 15 June 2012 7 min read

Contents

On this page

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2012 0053

GEOFFREY NILS HANDBERG (IN HIS CAPACITY AS LIQUIDATOR OF S&D INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD (RECEIVER AND MANAGER APPOINTED) (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 075 030 447)	First Applicant
	and
S& D INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD (RECEIVER AND MANAGER APPOINTED) (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 075 030 447)	Second Applicant
	v
MIG Property Services Pty Ltd (ACN 006 657 174)	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WARREN CJ and MANDIE JA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	15 June 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 June 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSCA 126
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	Re MIG Property Services Pty Ltd [2012] VSC 122 (Robson J)

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for leave to appeal – Whether substantial injustice demonstrated

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicants	Mr M Galvin	Mills Oakley
For the Respondent	Mr P Tree SC with Mr D Triaca	Mason Black

WARREN CJ:

I invite Mandie JA to deliver his judgment first.

MANDIE JA:

The applicants seek leave to appeal from orders of Robson J in the Trial Division made on 23 March 2012. The substance of those orders was to adjourn a winding up application in respect of the respondent company (‘MIG’) for the reason that the judgment debt, which was the basis of a statutory demand the failure to comply with which was the ground for the winding up, was the subject of an appeal. Thus, the application for the winding up order would not come on until after the appeal in relation to the judgment debt had been heard and determined.[1] The winding up order by the Associate Justice was set aside.
[1]In fact, a winding up order was made by an Associate Justice and in order for the orders now sought to be challenged to be made, that order was set aside.

The background to the application is that MIG was a mortgagee of a property in Footscray of which the second applicant (‘S&D’) was the registered proprietor. The property was sold by the agent in possession for the mortgagee and, after payment of various other debts, the net proceeds of the mortgagee’s sale were paid by the agent in possession to the mortgagee, MIG These events occurred in or about October 2007 and shortly thereafter Mr David Mond who controlled MIG paid $410,000 out of the proceeds received by MIG to an overseas bank account for the benefit of Mr Mond and his wife.

The first-named applicant is the liquidator of the second-named applicant S&D. In August 2008, the first applicant in his capacity as liquidator of S&D brought a proceeding in the Supreme Court against MIG and the agent in possession (Mr Vartelas) seeking orders that the monies received from the sale of the Footscray property alleged to be surplus to the amount secured by the mortgage be paid to S&D or into court. On 26 September 2008, pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court made the previous day, Mr Vartelas paid $628,936.03 into court. This amount…

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 Handberg v MIG Property Services 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: [2012] VSCA 126
Decision Date: 15 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Handberg v MIG Property Services Pty Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Handberg, sought leave to appeal a decision made by the District Court, which had found in favour of the defendant, MIG Property Services Pty Ltd. The dispute centred around an alleged failure by the defendant to exercise reasonable care and skill in providing property management services, resulting in significant financial loss to the plaintiff.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the plaintiff had demonstrated a substantial injustice warranting leave to appeal. The plaintiff argued that the District Court's decision was erroneous and that there were significant errors in the interpretation of contractual obligations and the assessment of damages. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that the plaintiff had not shown any substantial injustice and that the District Court's decision should stand.

The Supreme Court considered the criteria for granting leave to appeal, focusing on whether the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success and whether there had been a substantial injustice caused by the original decision. The court noted that the plaintiff's arguments were primarily focused on the merits of the case rather than identifying any procedural errors or misapplications of law that would justify an appeal. After careful consideration, the court concluded that the plaintiff had not met the threshold for demonstrating a substantial injustice. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

In summary, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the District Court and denied the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal. The court held that there was no substantial injustice demonstrated by the plaintiff, and therefore, the original decision would stand.

Orders