Legal Research
Cases
Long Forest Estate Pty Ltd v Singh

Long Forest Estate Pty Ltd v Singh

Link copied

Case Copied 23 September 2020 79 min read

Contents

On this page

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

PROPERTY LIST

S CI 2018 01064

LONG FOREST ESTATE PTY LTD	Plaintiff
-and-
GURPREET SINGH	First Defendant
SHRI GURU PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	John Dixon J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2-5, 9-12, 23 June 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 September 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Long Forest Estate Pty Ltd v Singh & Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 604

---

REAL PROPERTY – Conveyancing – Section 32 statement – Gazettal of threatened species and ecological communities by Commonwealth Minister for Environment – Referral of development application to Minister for approval – Whether gazetted instruments and documents concerning development application under Commonwealth environmental legislation required to be contained in section 32 statement – Whether purchaser entitled to rescind contract – Whether any contravention ought reasonably be excused – Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 (Cth) ss 18, 67– 72, 74, 75, 77, 130, 131AA, 133, 170A, 178, 181, 184, 194; Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic) ss 32, 32D, 32K.

REAL PROPERTY – Caveat – Claim for compensation for lodging caveat without reasonable cause – Whether honest belief based on reasonable ground for caveatable interest – Where question of whether reasonable grounds existed was dependent on issues to be determined in the proceeding – Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic) s 118.

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – Legislative intention – Disclosure required by section 32 of the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic) – Legislative history of section 32 – Meaning of ‘directly and currently affecting’ land – Whether State Parliament intended references to ‘public authority’ to include Commonwealth authorities – Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic) s 48.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr A P Rodbard-Bean	Septimus Jones and Lee
For the Defendants	Mr C E Shaw SC with Ms N Hassan of counsel	Impex Lawyers & Advisers

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 3

Summary of findings........................................................................................................................ 4

Issues on the claim........................................................................................................................ 4
Issues on the defence and counterclaim.................................................................................... 5
Sale of Land Act................................................................................................................... 5
Misrepresentation................................................................................................................ 5
Remedies............................................................................................................................... 5

Mode of trial........................................................................................................................................ 6

General findings of fact.................................................................................................................... 8

Findings about witnesses............................................................................................................. 8
Mr Batzios and Mr Matthews............................................................................................ 8
Mr Kelemen and Mr Giannakidis..................................................................................... 8
Mr Singh.............................................................................................................................. 12

General findings concerning the transaction.......................................................................... 19
Engagement of Kelemen’s and preparation of the IM................................................. 20
The first meeting................................................................................................................ 21
The second meeting........................................................................................................... 22
The third meeting.............................................................................................................. 24
Execution of the contract.................................................................................................. 25

Sale of Land Act issues.................................................................................................................... 27

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act....................................................... 28
Relevant provisions........................................................................................................... 28
Analysis............................................................................................................................... 35

Long Forest refers proposed development for approval...................................................... 35
Long Forest’s application for a planning permit.................................................................... 38
Progress of the applications....................................................................................................... 39
Preparation of the vendor’s statement..................................................................................... 41
Was there actionable non-disclosure in the vendor’s statement?........................................ 43
Was Mr Singh precluded from rescission?.............................................................................. 54

Representation based claims......................................................................................................... 60

Was there reliance?..................................................................................................................... 63
Reliance on own consultant....................................................................................................... 70
Progression of Urban Growth Framework Plan and further Mesh retainer...................... 74
The meeting on 6…

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 Long Forest Estate Pty Ltd v Singh 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: [2020] VSC 604
Decision Date: 23 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Long Forest Estate Pty Ltd brought an action against Singh regarding a contract for the sale of land. The dispute centred on whether the purchaser was entitled to rescind the contract due to the vendor’s failure to include certain documents in the section 32 statement. The documents in question were gazetted instruments and documents concerning a development application under Commonwealth environmental legislation. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issue was whether the gazetted instruments and documents concerning the development application, as required by Commonwealth environmental legislation, needed to be included in the section 32 statement under the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic). Another issue was whether the purchaser was entitled to rescind the contract due to this omission, and if any such contravention should be excused. The court also considered whether the caveat lodged by Singh was made without reasonable cause and whether he was entitled to compensation.

The Supreme Court of Victoria found that the gazetted instruments and documents concerning the development application were not required to be included in the section 32 statement. The court held that the phrase ‘directly and currently affecting’ in the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic) did not include the Commonwealth environmental legislation. The court further held that the vendor’s failure to include these documents did not entitle the purchaser to rescind the contract, and that any contravention should be excused. Regarding the caveat, the court found that Singh had an honest belief based on reasonable grounds for lodging the caveat, and thus, was not liable for compensation.

The court ordered that Long Forest Estate Pty Ltd was not entitled to rescind the contract, and any contravention of the section 32 statement should be excused. The court also dismissed Singh’s claim for compensation for lodging the caveat.

Orders