Luhan v Micallef - [2017] VSC 246

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
PROPERTY LIST

S CI 2016 00786

RICHARD LUHAN and	Plaintiffs
ROBERT LUHAN
– and –
GEORGIA MICALLEF	Defendant
– and –
RT EDGAR BOROONDARA PTY LTD and others	Third Parties

---

JUDGE:	Mukhtar AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 April 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 May 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Luhan v Micallef
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 246

---

EQUITY ― Equitable remedies ― Specific performance ― Sale of land ― Vendor’s unwillingness to complete ― Legally binding contract ― No vitiating factors ― Vendor claiming importunity to sell from own agent and ‘mistake’ in signing contract ― Purchasers with clean hands and no unconscientious conduct ― Contract price below valuation as subsequently obtained ― Whether damages adequate remedy ― Discretionary principles ― Decree for specific performance summarily granted

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr P Lithgow	Ascot Solicitors
For the Defendant	Mr S Stuckey	Tasiopoulos Lambros & Co
For the First and Second Third Parties	Ms L Deery	Lander & Rogers

HIS HONOUR:

On 28 April 2017, the Court granted the plaintiffs’ application for summary judgment. By their writ, they sought a decree of specific performance of a contract of sale of land at 1315-1355 Beattys Road in Rockbank, which is 5 kilometres south-east of Melton. The land had an area of about 5 hectares. The price was $1.0 million. There was no question at all about the legal validity of the contract; nor the purchasers’ readiness, willingness and ability to complete. The defendant vendor, was 80 years of age at the time, resisted the application only on the ground of the remedy. It was contended on her behalf that there was a case to be tried on the question of whether the discretionary relief of specific performance ought be withheld on the ground that damages was an adequate remedy. She pleads that her own estate agents ‘badgered her’ to sign the contract at her family birthday party held at the Crown Casino. The purchasers were blameless in the whole dealing. After the writ was filed the defendant obtained a market valuation of the land, using a direct comparison approach, of $1.5 million.

In an ex tempore decision, I formed the view that the facts were overwhelmingly in favour of the plaintiffs and it was unjust to deprive the plaintiffs of the benefit of the contract, which the defendant should honour. That is, I decided the defendant had no real prospect of succeeding to deprive the plaintiffs of a decree for specific performance. The case fell into that species of summary judgment application where the Court allowed substantive argument in order to assess the prospects of success. What follows is a recapitulation of those reasons with expanded content.

The plain fact, from which all legal obligations arise, is that, by a contract made on 13 May 2015, the plaintiffs purchased the land at 1315-1355 Beattys Road in Rockbank from…

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 Luhan v Micallef

Details

AGLC: Luhan v Micallef [2017] VSC 246
Case: [2017] VSC 246
Decision Date: 10 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Luhan v Micallef involved a dispute between the parties over the sale of land, where the vendor was unwilling to complete the transaction despite having entered into a legally binding contract. The purchasers sought an equitable remedy of specific performance, arguing that there were no vitiating factors present and that they were acting with clean hands. The vendor, on the other hand, claimed that they were subjected to importunity by their own agent and made a mistake in signing the contract, and that damages would be an adequate remedy. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division.

The central legal issue the court had to decide was whether the purchasers were entitled to an order for specific performance of the contract for the sale of the land. The court had to consider whether the contract was valid and binding, and if there were any circumstances that would prevent the grant of specific performance, such as the presence of vitiating factors or any unconscientious conduct on the part of the purchasers. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the purchasers, given that the contract price was below the valuation subsequently obtained.

In determining the matter, the court found that there were no vitiating factors present and that the purchasers had acted with clean hands. The court held that the contract was valid and binding, and that the vendor's claims of importunity and mistake did not prevent the grant of specific performance. The court further found that damages would not be an adequate remedy for the purchasers, given the significant difference between the contract price and the subsequent valuation of the land. Applying the discretionary principles relevant to specific performance, the court ultimately granted the purchasers a decree for specific performance of the contract, summarily.

The final orders of the court included a decree for specific performance of the contract for the sale of the land, with the vendor required to complete the transaction as per the terms of the contract. The court also ordered the vendor to pay the purchasers' costs of the proceedings.

Orders