LUONG DINH LUU v SOVEREIGN DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD & 2 ORS [2006] NSWCA 40
HEARING DATE(S):
20 February 2005
JUDGMENT DATE:
10 March 2006
JUDGMENT OF:
Handley JA at 1; McColl JA at 2; Bryson JA at 3
DECISION:
1. Appeal allowed with costs.; 2 .Set aside orders 1, 2 and 3 of the orders of Judge Truss of 10 December 2004.; 3. In lieu thereof give judgment for the defendants with costs.
CATCHWORDS:
VENDOR AND PURCHASER – Deposit – nature of deposit – identification of deposit on construction of inconsistent references in Contract – forfeiture of deposit on failure to complete – exemption of forfeiture of reasonable deposit from law avoiding contractual penalties – whether liquidated damages – contract on proper construction provided for deposit less than 1% of p.p. – Special Condition 5 provided that if purchaser committed a default 10% deposit should become due and payable – reference in SC 5 to that payment as a deposit was a misdescription – the provision of SC 5 relating to further payment on default was void as a penalty. - PENALTY – what constitutes penalty – deposit on sale of land – a provision requiring payment of up to 10% of purchase price to be made on any default by purchaser where contract established that the deposit was about 1%, was a penalty and was void notwithstanding that, if the contractual deposit had been 10% that would have been a reasonable deposit and not a penalty – consideration whether the provision was liquidated damages – held that it was not.
Appellant – Luong Dinh Luu First Respondent – Sovereign Developments Pty Ltd Second Respondent – Luutin Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) Third Respondent – Ross Anthony Lloyd Martin
FILE NUMBER(S):
CA 40579/2005
COUNSEL:
Appellant – D. Allen First Respondent – C.D. Freeman
[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 Luu v Sovereign Developments Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Luu v Sovereign Developments Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 40
Case
[2006] NSWCA 40
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Luu v Sovereign Developments Pty Ltd*, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales considered a dispute between a vendor and a purchaser concerning the forfeiture of a deposit upon the purchaser's failure to complete a contract for the sale of land. The core of the disagreement lay in the interpretation of the contract's provisions regarding the deposit and the consequences of default.
The legal issues before the court were whether a contractual provision requiring the purchaser to pay an additional sum, described as a "deposit," upon default constituted a penalty, and if so, whether that provision was void. Specifically, the court had to determine if this additional payment was a genuine pre-estimate of loss (liquidated damages) or an unenforceable penalty, given that the initial deposit was significantly less than the amount stipulated for default.
The court reasoned that while a deposit of up to 10% of the purchase price is generally considered reasonable and not a penalty, the contract's specific wording was critical. Here, the contract initially stipulated a deposit of less than 1% of the purchase price. Special Condition 5 then provided that if the purchaser defaulted, a further payment, referred to as a "deposit," of 10% of the purchase price would become due. The court found that this reference to the further payment as a "deposit" was a misdescription. Applying the principles of penalty clauses, the court determined that the provision in Special Condition 5 relating to this further payment on default was void as a penalty, as it was not a genuine pre-estimate of the vendor's loss but rather a punitive sum.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the previous orders, and entered judgment for the defendants with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed with costs.; 2 .Set aside orders 1, 2 and 3 of the orders of Judge Truss of 10 December 2004.; 3. In lieu thereof give judgment for the defendants with costs.