Liggins v Park Trent Properties Group Pty Ltd (No. 2)

In the case of Liggins v Park Trent Properties Group Pty Ltd (No. 2), the plaintiffs pursued an action for breach of contract against the first defendant, who had failed to repurchase two parcels of real estate under a buyback agreement. The central issues contested by the parties involved the calculation of damages for the breach of this agreement. The plaintiffs had originally acquired the two properties and held them for rental under government schemes incentivising investment in affordable rental properties. The first defendant's refusal to repurchase the properties led the plaintiffs to continue holding them, leading to the present dispute over the damages owed.

The court had to determine several key legal issues regarding the calculation of the plaintiffs’ damages for breach of contract. These included whether the full benefits received by the plaintiffs under the NRAS scheme for investing in the two properties as rental housing should be accounted for in reducing their claim, whether depreciation claimed on the properties should be included or excluded from the plaintiffs’ losses, whether tax savings associated with the plaintiffs’ future ownership of the rental properties should be brought to account, and whether capital gains from the plaintiffs’ ownership of the two rental properties should be accounted for in reducing their losses.

In its reasoning, the court found that the first defendant had indeed breached the buyback agreement. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for specific performance but found that damages for breach of contract were appropriate. The court ruled that the appropriate date for assessing damages for breach of contract was the date of the breach, and that it was not reasonable for the plaintiffs to seek specific performance of the contract, thus the date for the assessment of damages should not be deferred.

The court made specific findings on the contested issues regarding the calculation of damages. It ruled that the full benefits received under the NRAS scheme did not need to be brought to account to reduce the plaintiffs’ claim, as the plaintiffs had forgone market rent as a result of accepting the NRAS benefits. Depreciation claimed on the properties in the plaintiffs’ tax returns was excluded from their losses. Tax savings associated with the plaintiffs’ future ownership of the rental properties were also excluded. Finally, capital gains associated with the plaintiffs’ ownership of the two rental properties up to the time of the Court’s first judgment were not brought to account in reduction of the plaintiffs’ losses.