Scott v Medley Close Pty Ltd (No 2) - [2006] VSC 118

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION
COMMERCIAL LIST

No. 4254 of 2004

DAVID JOHN SCOTT	Plaintiff
v
MEDLEY CLOSE PTY LTD (ACN 007 135 186) and TIMOTHY KEITH MAXWELL	Defendants

AND BETWEEN

MEDLEY CLOSE PTY LTD (ACN 007 135 186) and TIMOTHY KEITH MAXWELL	Plaintiffs by counterclaim
v
DAVID JOHN SCOTT	Defendant by counterclaim

---

JUDGE:	HABERSBERGER J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	10 MARCH 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	31 MARCH 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	SCOTT v MEDLEY CLOSE PTY LTD [NO. 2]
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 118

---

Damages – Assessment - Breach of agreement to secure rezoning of property prior to settlement of purchase - Property sold pursuant to court order – Unequal contributions by co-owners to funding of purchase – Division of the net proceeds of sale between co-owners.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr P.C. Golombek	Samantha Ward Pty
For the Second Defendant	No appearance

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

On 14 October 2004 I published my reasons for judgment in this proceeding.[1] In effect, the reasons for judgment concerned liability only because on 29 October 2004 I relevantly ordered that:
[1][2004] VSC 395

(1)The land described in Certificates of Title Volume 9681 Folio 763 and Volume 10313 Folio 508 ("the LaTrobe Boulevard property") be sold altogether out of court as one lot pursuant to s.223 of the Property Law Act 1958.
(2)The sale of the LaTrobe Boulevard property be by public auction by a real estate agent to be appointed by agreement between the plaintiff, David John Scott, and the second defendant, Timothy Keith Maxwell or (in default of agreement) appointed by the court, at a reserve price and on a date agreed by Mr Scott and Mr Maxwell or (in default of agreement) fixed by the real estate agent.

(3) The solicitors for the parties have the conduct of the sale.
(4)Mr Scott and Mr Maxwell be each allowed to bid at the sale pursuant to s.225 of the Property Law Act 1958.
(5)The sale of the LaTrobe Boulevard property be for cash payable by a 10% deposit and the balance within 60 days and otherwise on terms agreed by the parties or (in default of agreement) determined by the court.

(6)       The proceeds of sale be applied as follows:-
(a)       first, to secure a discharge of the mortgage;
(b)      secondly, in payment of the costs and expenses of the sale;
(c)thirdly, the balance to be paid into a joint interest bearing account in the names of the solicitors for the parties pending further order.

(7)Mr Maxwell and Mr Scott do all such things and execute all documents required to effect the sale.
(8)Within 30 days of the date of the settlement of the sale of the LaTrobe Boulevard property Mr Scott file and serve:-
(a) an account of:–
(i)all proceeds of sale and amounts applied therefrom to discharge the mortgage and in payment of the costs and expenses of the…

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 Scott v Medley Close Pty Ltd (No 2) 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: [2006] VSC 118
Decision Date: 31 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Scott and Medley Close Pty Ltd appeared before the court in a dispute concerning the assessment of damages resulting from a breach of agreement to secure rezoning of property prior to the settlement of a purchase. The property was eventually sold following a court order. The issue of unequal contributions by the co-owners to the funding of the purchase, and the subsequent division of the net proceeds of sale between the co-owners, was central to the case. The court was required to determine the appropriate method for assessing damages and how the net proceeds of sale should be divided among the co-owners, given their unequal contributions.

The court considered the nature of the agreement and the breach, the circumstances leading to the sale of the property, and the unequal contributions made by the co-owners. It examined the principles of equity and fairness in the division of proceeds and the need to ensure that each party's contributions were appropriately reflected in the outcome. The court also reviewed relevant case law and statutory provisions to guide its decision.

The court concluded that the damages should be assessed based on the loss directly caused by the breach, taking into account the unequal contributions to the purchase. It held that the division of the net proceeds of sale should reflect these contributions, ensuring that each party received a proportionate share based on their financial input. The court ordered that the net proceeds be divided according to a formula that accounted for the unequal contributions, with detailed calculations provided to ensure clarity and fairness in the division.

The final orders included specific directions for the calculation and distribution of the net proceeds of sale, ensuring that each co-owner received an amount reflective of their financial contribution to the purchase of the property. The court's decision provided a clear framework for assessing damages and dividing proceeds in similar future cases.

Orders