Luben Petkovski v Kai Yin Huang

Luben Petkovski and others initiated legal proceedings against Kai Yin Huang and others, contesting various claims and cross-claims related to the acquisition and subdivision of a block of land. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had committed acts of trespass and nuisance by placing objects on their lots and obstructing access. The defendants, in turn, raised cross-claims against the plaintiffs, asserting that the plaintiffs had engaged in unconscionable conduct, including economic duress and misleading or deceptive conduct, during the negotiation and execution of the land acquisition agreements. The disputes also included a claim by the cross-claimants that the area of the property conveyed differed from what was represented to them. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiffs' conduct constituted unconscionable behaviour, including economic duress, which could warrant the setting aside of the deeds of trust signed by the cross-claimants. Another issue was whether the plaintiffs' conduct amounted to misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law, and if so, whether this conduct caused any loss to the cross-claimants. The court also had to determine whether the trespass and nuisance claims brought by the parties had merit and, if proven, whether they warranted damages or other forms of relief.

The court found that the conduct of the first plaintiff, acting as an agent for the vendor, did amount to economic duress. The pressure applied to the cross-claimants to commit three of the six lots to be acquired by the plaintiffs, rather than themselves, was undue and unconscionable. As a result, the deeds of trust were set aside, and the court ordered the reconveyance of the three lots to the cross-claimants. The court also found that the property conveyed was not the same as that represented to the cross-claimants, but this did not occasion any loss to them. Regarding the trespass and nuisance claims, the court found that some acts of trespass had occurred but did not warrant any damages or relief as no loss was established.

The court ordered the reconveyance of three lots to the cross-claimants and dismissed the claims of misleading or deceptive conduct and the trespass and nuisance claims. The cross-claimants were not entitled to any damages or compensation for the discrepancies in the property area or the trespasses committed. The court's final orders reflected these findings, ensuring that the reconveyance of the lots took place and that no further monetary relief was granted to the cross-claimants.