IN THE MATTER OF ST GEORGE’S DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 149 242 955)
MATTHEW BYRNES in his capacity as liquidator of St George’s Development Company Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (ACN 149 242 955)	Plaintiff

S ECI 2021 4331

IN THE MATTER OF ELIANA CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPING GROUP PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ACN 132 817 362)
COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA (and others according to the Schedule)	Plaintiff
v
JOHN STUART POTTS in his capacity as former liquidator of Eliana Construction and Developing Group Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (receivers and managers appointed) (ACN 132 817 362) (and another according to the Schedule)	Defendants

JUDGE:	Nichols J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 February 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 June 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re St George Development Company; Re Eliana Construction and Developing Group
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 295

---

MONEY – Joint venture agreement – Funding by venturers in uneven proportions – Liquidation of joint venture vehicle after failure of venture – Whether funding a capital contribution or loan – Consideration of essential elements of loan and capital – Moneys intended at all times to be repaid – Capital nature inconsistent with express terms of venturers’ relationship – Loan contracts to be inferred from all the circumstances.

CONTRACT – Inference of a contract from course of conduct – Inference of an intention to repay funds advanced – Significance of binding trust deed on inquiry to find objective intention – Consideration of relevance of post-contractual conduct in inferential fact-finding – Standard of persuasion to be attained.

CORPORATIONS – Trustee company in liquidation – Application by liquidator for directions – Interested parties joining issue in separate proceeding – Where company’s books and records vague and contradictory – Characterisation of advances.

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff in S ECI 2018 00597	Mr D McAloon	Maddocks
For the Plaintiffs in S ECI 2021 04331	Mr P Miller	HWL Ebsworth
For the Defendants in S ECI 2021 04331	Mr P Agardy	White Clelland
For the Luka Medical Centre Pty Ltd	Ms T Spencer Bruce	K&L Gates

Part A: Introduction and background............................................................................................ 1

The present applications.............................................................................................................. 1

Part B: Governing principles........................................................................................................... 5

Part C: The parties’ submissions................................................................................................... 12

Part D: The Manningham Road Venture – course of dealings............................................... 15

The evidence – preliminary....................................................................................................... 15
Initial discussions and proposed joint venture....................................................................... 16
The St George Development Unit Trust.................................................................................. 19
The venture and its funding...................................................................................................... 23
The financial statements of the Trust....................................................................................... 28
General Ledgers.......................................................................................................................... 34
Other documentary evidence.................................................................................................... 36
Report as to Affairs............................................................................................................ 36
St George’s 2017 tax return............................................................................................... 38
Eliana’s books and records............................................................................................... 40

Part E: Analysis................................................................................................................................. 41

The Unit Trust and Trust Deed................................................................................................. 41
The financial statements of the Trust....................................................................................... 43
Evidence of Dr Luka................................................................................................................... 48
Synthesis....................................................................................................................................... 55

Disposition........................................................................................................................................ 57

HER HONOUR:

Part A: Introduction and background
The present applications

Before me are two proceedings which…

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 Re St George Development Company

Details

AGLC: Re St George Development Company [2022] VSC 295
Case: [2022] VSC 295
Decision Date: 6 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re St George Development Company involved a dispute between various parties regarding the characterisation of funds provided by venturers to a joint venture company that ultimately went into liquidation. The dispute reached the court, which had to determine whether the funding provided by the venturers constituted capital contributions or loans. This case also addressed the inference of a contract from the course of conduct and the significance of a binding trust deed on inquiry into the objective intention of the parties involved.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the funds provided by the venturers were capital contributions or loans, and whether a contract could be inferred from the parties' conduct, particularly their intention to repay the funds advanced. The court was required to consider the relevant elements of a loan and capital, and the significance of post-contractual conduct in inferring the objective intention of the parties. The standard of persuasion to be attained was also an important consideration.

The court found that the funding provided by the venturers was intended to be repaid and therefore constituted a loan, rather than a capital contribution. The court considered the express terms of the venturers’ relationship, which were inconsistent with the capital nature of the funding. The court inferred a loan contract from the circumstances, including the binding trust deed and the conduct of the parties after the agreement was made. The post-contractual conduct was relevant in inferring the objective intention of the parties. The liquidator, as the trustee company in liquidation, sought directions from the court, and interested parties joined the issue in a separate proceeding. The court found that the company’s books and records were vague and contradictory, which made it difficult to characterise the advances.

The court ordered that the advances made by the venturers to the joint venture company were to be characterised as loans rather than capital contributions. The court also found that a contract could be inferred from the course of conduct and the objective intention of the parties, and that the standard of persuasion required was met. The liquidator was directed to proceed with the liquidation of the company, taking into account the characterisation of the advances as loans.

Orders