Legal Research
Cases
Knight v Mayart Pty Ltd

Knight v Mayart Pty Ltd

Case [2022] VSCA 36 23 March 2022

Contract Formation

Breach of Contract

Implied Terms

Admissibility of Evidence

Contract Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCI 2021 0043

MICHAEL KNIGHT	Applicant
v
MAYART PTY LTD (ACN 007 001 176) (AS TRUSTEE FOR MAYART PROPERTY TRUST) & ORS (according to the attached Schedule)	Respondents

---

JUDGES:	McLEISH, SIFRIS and KENNEDY JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	16 February 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 March 2022
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSCA 36
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2020] VCC 1929 (Judge Macnamara)

---

CONTRACT LAW – Claim under guarantee for repayment of moneys lent under two loan agreements – Moneys lent for purposes including development of property – Where loan agreements contained terms relating to provision, execution and return of building contract – Whether such terms constituted conditions, breach of which would discharge guarantor from obligations – Terms not intended to be conditions – Guarantor not discharged – No error in finding that building contract was provided, executed and returned, in any event – Leave to appeal refused –Ankar Pty Ltd v National Westminster Finance (Australia) Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 549, applied.

EVIDENCE – Whether undiscovered documents tendered during trial were admitted contrary to Evidence Act 2008 – Authenticity of documents – Whether authenticity must be proven by extrinsic evidence – National Australia Bank Ltd vRusu (1999) 47 NSWLR 309, not followed – Evidence Act 2008 s 58.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Natural justice – Self-represented litigant – Whether breach of Civil Procedure Act 2010 or procedural unfairness where new evidence admitted during trial – Evidence relevant to issue only raised by applicant during trial, and applicant had notice of substance of evidence – No breach.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	In person
For the Respondents	Dr M Wolff	Noble Lawyers

McLEISH JA
SIFRIS JA
KENNEDY JA:

This is an application for leave to appeal an order of a judge of the County Court which required the applicant (‘Mr Knight’) to pay the first respondent (‘Mayart’), and the second and third respondents (‘Mr Daley’ and ‘Ms Daley’, or ‘the Daleys’) various sums of money exceeding $900,000.[1] These sums were owed under two loan agreements, wherein Mr Knight had guaranteed his then-wife’s repayment obligations to Mayart and the Daleys.
[1]See Mayart Pty Ltd v Knight [2020] VCC 1929 (‘Reasons’).

The loans arose in circumstances where Mr Knight and his wife were intending to develop a property located at Parkdale, of which Mrs Knight was the registered proprietor, into a number of apartments. They engaged a builder for that purpose. When a dispute arose with the builder concerning outstanding invoices, the loans were entered into and monies were advanced to Mrs Knight. It was anticipated that the loans would be repaid upon settlement of contracts for the sale of two of the apartments once the property was developed. When the contracts of sale were terminated, the loans remained unpaid.

Both loan agreements included reference to the ‘Lender’ providing a copy of a ‘Building Contract’ to the ‘Builder’ (Dalle Projects Pty Ltd (‘Dalle Projects’), of which Mr…

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 Knight v Mayart Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Knight v Mayart Pty Ltd [2022] VSCA 36
Case: [2022] VSCA 36
Decision Date: 23 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a claim by the plaintiff, Knight, against the defendant, Mayart Pty Ltd, under a guarantee for repayment of moneys lent under two loan agreements. The loans were provided for the purposes, among others, of developing property. The dispute centred on whether certain terms in the loan agreements, relating to the provision, execution, and return of a building contract, constituted conditions that, if breached, would discharge the guarantor from their obligations. The court was also required to determine whether the admission of certain documents during the trial contravened the Evidence Act 2008 and whether the trial process was fair given the self-represented nature of the plaintiff. Additionally, the court considered whether the admission of new evidence during the trial breached natural justice or procedural fairness under the Civil Procedure Act 2010.

The court held that the terms in question were not intended to be conditions that would discharge the guarantor from their obligations. It was found that the guarantor was not discharged from their obligations, and there was no error in concluding that the building contract was provided, executed, and returned. Regarding the evidence, the court determined that the documents were properly admitted under the Evidence Act 2008, as their authenticity did not need to be proven by extrinsic evidence. The court also held that there was no breach of natural justice or procedural fairness in admitting the new evidence, as the plaintiff had notice of the substance of the evidence and it was relevant only to issues raised during the trial.

The court further held that the trial process was fair and did not breach any provisions of the Civil Procedure Act 2010. It found that the evidence was relevant to the issues raised and that the self-represented nature of the plaintiff did not result in procedural unfairness. The court dismissed the appeal and refused leave to appeal. The decision was based on the application of principles from Ankar Pty Ltd v National Westminster Finance (Australia) Ltd and the relevant statutory provisions.

Orders