Legal Research
Cases
Martorella v Innovision Developments Pty Ltd

Martorella v Innovision Developments Pty Ltd

Case [2011] VSC 282 24 June 2011

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION
PRACTICE COURT

No. S CI 2011 02184

STEPHEN ANTHONY MARTORELLA and DONNA MARIE MARTORELLA	Plaintiffs
v
INNOVISION DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD	First Defendant
and
THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	DIXON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	6, 14 June 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 June 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Martorella v Innovision Developments Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 282

---

REAL PROPERTY – Caveat – Application to remove caveat claiming estate in fee simple pursuant to an uncompleted contract of sale – Contract rescinded by vendor for caveator’s default at settlement – Purchaser to seek relief from forfeiture of deposit – No caveatable interest - Application to amend caveat to substitute interest claimed - Whether caveat should be amended - Application refused - Whether prima facie case of sufficient probability to justify maintenance of proposed caveatable interest - Whether equitable lien – Property for sale – Undertakings to preserve part of the proceeds of sale – Balance of convenience - Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic) s 90(3).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R Kendall QC with Mr M La Pirow	Davies Moloney
For the first Defendant	Mr Wikramanayake SC with Mr A Phillips	Lewenberg & Lewenberg

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The issues............................................................................................................................................ 1

What happened?................................................................................................................................. 1

(a) The caveat................................................................................................................................. 1
(b) The purchaser’s first default.................................................................................................. 2
(c) The deed of variation.............................................................................................................. 3
(d) The defendant’s second default and rescission.................................................................. 5
(e) The key terms of the contract................................................................................................. 7
(f) Further negotiations: February to May 2011........................................................................ 8

The plaintiffs’ contentions............................................................................................................... 9

The defendant‘s contentions.......................................................................................................... 10

Further deposit: an earnest or a penalty?................................................................................ 10

Plaintiffs’ contentions in reply...................................................................................................... 12

Consequences for the plaintiffs of termination of the contract............................................... 14

The application to amend the caveat............................................................................................ 15

Applicable legal principles............................................................................................................. 16

Specifying an estate or interest in land.................................................................................... 16
Amending a caveat: are there limits on a wide power?........................................................ 19
The discretion to amend a caveat............................................................................................. 22
When ought a caveat be removed?.......................................................................................... 23

Resolution of the applications....................................................................................................... 24

HIS HONOUR:

The issues

In this proceeding, the plaintiff seeks the summary removal of the first defendant’s caveat. During the course of the hearing, the first defendant filed a summons seeking to amend the caveat. The second defendant is the Registrar of Titles who is not appearing in the action. For convenience, I will refer to the first defendant as ‘the defendant’.

During the hearing of the application, the issues before the Court were fluid. They have now resolved and are as follows:

· Should the caveat be amended?

· If no, should the caveat be removed?

· If yes, is there a probability that the defendant will be found to have the equitable interest asserted by the amended caveat?

· Is that probability sufficient to justify the restriction on the rights of the registered proprietor flowing from the presence of the caveat?

The defendant now asserts an equitable lien…

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 Martorella v Innovision Developments Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Martorella v Innovision Developments Pty Ltd [2011] VSC 282
Case: [2011] VSC 282
Decision Date: 24 June 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Martorella as the caveator and Innovision Developments Pty Ltd as the respondent. The dispute centred on a contract for the sale of real property where Martorella had lodged a caveat claiming an estate in fee simple. This arose from an uncompleted contract of sale. The vendor rescinded the contract due to Martorella's failure to meet the settlement requirements. The court was required to determine whether Martorella had a caveatable interest and if the caveat could be amended to reflect the interest claimed. Additionally, the court considered whether an equitable lien existed and if the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the caveat.

The court examined the nature of the interest claimed by Martorella. Given that the contract was rescinded, Martorella did not hold a caveatable interest, as such interest would have been dependent on the contract's completion. The court also assessed whether the caveat could be amended to substitute the interest claimed. It found that amending the caveat would not alter the fundamental issue of Martorella's lack of a legitimate interest in the property. The court found no basis for an equitable lien, as the property was still available for sale and not exclusively held by Martorella. Furthermore, the balance of convenience did not support maintaining the caveat, as it would impede the respondent's ability to sell the property.

Ultimately, the court refused the application to amend the caveat and dismissed Martorella's claims. The court held that Martorella had no caveatable interest and that amending the caveat would not address this fundamental issue. The court's decision was influenced by the rescinded contract and the lack of a sufficient probability that Martorella could establish a valid claim. The court concluded that the balance of convenience lay with the respondent, allowing the property to proceed to sale. Consequently, the court ordered the removal of the caveat and dismissed the application.

Orders