Re Venture Capital Group Pty Ltd - [2012] VSC 654

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

COMMERCIAL COURT
CORPORATIONS LIST

No. S CI 3857 of 2012

RE VENTURE CAPITAL GROUP PTY LTD (ACN 111 119 914)
(in its own right and as trustee of the VCG TRUST)

ALPHATER CONSULTING ENGINEERING PTY LTD (ACN 107 959 629)	Plaintiff
v
MILES ROZMAN & ORS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	ROBSON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 October 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 October 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Venture Capital Group Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 654

---

CONTRACT LAW – Sale and purchase of business – Sale agreement – Valuation clause – terms of valuation clause – Terms agreed by conduct – Alternatively, parties estopped from denying terms of valuation clause – Whether implied term limited material available to independent expert in resolving conflict over valuation – Such limitation not necessary to give business efficacy to the contract.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr D B Clough	Lennon Mazzeo
For the Defendants	Mr D A Klempfner	B2B Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Mr Parisi is the sole director and sole shareholder of the plaintiff, Alphater Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd. The plaintiff holds an interest in a group of companies and trusts that owns and operates the Moderno Café business and the Bite franchise business. In January 2012, Mr Parisi was removed as a director of one of those companies, Venture Capital Group Pty Ltd (VCG).

In March of 2010, the plaintiff’s solicitors, Lennon Mazzeo, made certain demands on Mr Rozman, who controls the VCG group. Those demands included that Mr Parisi be reappointed as a director. Those demands were rejected by Mr Rozman in the letter of his solicitors dated 23 March 2010. The letter provides:

We refer to your letter dated 5 March 2010. Our client does not agree that your client owns one third of the units in the VCG Unit Trust. We are instructed that your client holds 25.5 per cent of the units. Your client does hold one of the three issued shares in VCG. Our client does not agree that it has always been part of any arrangement between our clients and Mr Parisi, that Mr Parisi would be entitled to be a director of VCG. We are instructed that the removal of Mr Parisi as a director was regrettable, but unavoidable given Mr Parisi's conduct in that capacity.
Our client will not rescind the termination of your client’s directorship of VCG. We note the threat of legal proceedings seeking remedies, including a purchase of your client's interest in VCG. We are instructed that our client or his nominee agree to purchase all of your client's interests in VCG, the VCG Unit Trust and all other entities in trust forming part of the Café Moderno and Bite businesses at their market valuation. This will avoid the need for the unnecessary cost and expense of any proceedings.
It seems to us and to our client…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Re Venture Capital Group Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] VSC 654
Decision Date: 15 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Venture Capital Group Pty Ltd, the matter involved the sale of a business between the liquidators of the vendor, Venture Capital Group Pty Ltd, and the purchasers, who were represented by their solicitors. The central dispute centred on the valuation clause within the sale agreement, which required an independent expert to determine the business's value. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the terms of the valuation clause had been agreed upon by the parties through their conduct and whether the parties were estopped from denying these terms. Additionally, the court considered whether there was an implied term that limited the material available to the independent expert in resolving any conflicts over the valuation. The court was required to determine if such a limitation was necessary to give business efficacy to the contract.

The court found that the terms of the valuation clause were indeed agreed upon by the conduct of the parties, as they had consistently referred to the clause and its process in their communications and actions. The court further held that the parties were estopped from denying the terms of the valuation clause due to their clear and consistent reliance on it. Regarding the implied term limiting the material available to the independent expert, the court ruled that such a limitation was not necessary to give business efficacy to the contract. The court emphasised that the contract already provided sufficient mechanisms for resolving disputes over the valuation without imposing unnecessary restrictions on the expert's access to information.

The court's final orders were to uphold the valuation clause as agreed upon by the parties and to allow the independent expert to access all relevant material in determining the business's value. The court's decision underscored the importance of clear and consistent conduct in agreeing upon contractual terms and the role of estoppel in preventing parties from reneging on agreed terms.

Orders