Roma RV Pty Ltd v Mitchcap Pty Ltd - [2022] VSC 715

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL COURT

S ECI 2022 04624

ROMA RV PTY LTD (ACN 144 025 016)	1^st plaintiff
MARK WILLIAM PALMARINI	2^nd plaintiff
v
MITCHCAP PTY LTD (ACN 630 819 760)	1^st defendant
SHANE JUSTIN CREMIN (IN HIS CAPACITY AS JOINT RECEIVER OF THE FIRST PLAINTIFF)	2^nd defendant
BRENT LEIGH MORGAN (IN HIS CAPACITY AS JOINT RECEIVER OF THE FIRST PLAINTIFF)	3^rd defendant

---

JUDGE:	Elliott J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14, 16 November 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 November 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Roma RV Pty Ltd v Mitchcap Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 715

---

INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION – Secured loan agreement – Bailment of goods – Breaches of agreement – Notices of default – Appointment of receivers – Seizure of goods – Interlocutory application for delivery up of seized goods – Whether appointment of receivers in good faith – Awareness of breaches of agreement – Serious question to be tried – Balance of convenience – Adequacy of damages as a final remedy – Injunction granted on condition amount equating to secured principal debt be paid into court.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the plaintiffs	M Robins KC and C Twidale	Vernon Da Gama & Associates
For the defendants	C Archibald KC and V Bell	Mills Oakley

HIS HONOUR:

IntroductionA.

An application made by the plaintiffs, Roma RV Pty Ltd (“Roma”) and Mark William Palmarini (“Palmarini”), in proceeding S ECI 2022 4624 (“the Responsive Proceeding”) effectively seeks to unravel recent events adversely affecting their interests.

Roma is in the business of selling new and used caravans, including under the name “Roma Caravans”, and has done so for many years.[1] Roma also has exclusive rights to sell “Alto” caravans manufactured in Canada and exports caravans and motorhomes to a dealer in Oklahoma, United States of America. Roma operates out of premises it leases at 1870B Hume Highway, Campbellfield, Victoria (“the Campbellfield Premises”).
[1]The use of the brand “Roma” to sell caravans started with Palmarini’s grandfather.

Palmarini is the sole director of Roma. As a representative of Roma, Palmarini has been a vice president and independent director of the Recreational Vehicle Manufacturers Association of Australia for over 7 years.

In mid-2021, Roma entered into a number of agreements with the first defendant, Mitchcap Pty Ltd (“Mitchcap”). Those agreements included a “Master Purchase, Bailment and Sale Deed” (“the Bailment Deed”)[2] and a “General Security Agreement” (“the Security Agreement”).[3]
[2]Palmarini was also a party to the Bailment Deed as a guarantor.
[3]Further detail in relation to these agreements is set out below: see pars 50, 53 below.

Mitchcap is also the plaintiff in proceeding S ECI 2022 4410 (“the Initial Proceeding”). In the Initial Proceeding, Roma is the first defendant and Palmarini is the seventh defendant. Mitchcap filed a summons in the Initial Proceeding, which originally was returnable on 31 October 2022. It was later adjourned for further hearing, to be heard at…

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 Roma RV Pty Ltd v Mitchcap 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: [2022] VSC 715
Decision Date: 18 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Roma RV Pty Ltd v Mitchcap Pty Ltd involved a dispute concerning a secured loan agreement, a bailment of goods, and subsequent breaches of the agreement. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Roma RV Pty Ltd sought an interlocutory injunction to compel Mitchcap Pty Ltd to deliver up goods that had been seized by receivers appointed over the assets of Mitchcap Pty Ltd. The basis for the seizure was the alleged breaches of the loan agreement by Mitchcap Pty Ltd.

The court was tasked with determining several legal issues, including whether the receivers were appointed in good faith, whether there were actual or constructive awareness of the breaches at the time of appointment, and whether the appointment and subsequent seizure of goods constituted a serious question to be tried. Additionally, the court needed to assess the balance of convenience, the adequacy of damages as a final remedy, and whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted. The central issue was whether Roma RV Pty Ltd had a sufficient basis to argue that the receivers acted in bad faith or without proper authority, given the alleged breaches of the loan agreement.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that there was a serious question to be tried regarding the good faith of the receivers' appointment and the awareness of breaches at the time. The court also concluded that Roma RV Pty Ltd had demonstrated the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction. It was noted that damages might not be an adequate remedy if the seized goods were to be sold before the final determination of the case. Therefore, the court granted an interlocutory injunction on the condition that Roma RV Pty Ltd paid into court an amount equating to the secured principal debt, ensuring that the lender's interests were protected pending the final outcome of the litigation.

The final orders of the court included the delivery up of the seized goods by Mitchcap Pty Ltd to Roma RV Pty Ltd, subject to the condition that the secured principal debt was paid into court. This ensured that the interests of both parties were balanced and protected during the pendency of the litigation.

Orders