JUDGE:	Derham AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4 August 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	31 August 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Singh v Lugondela
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 544 (revised 2 December 2020, 21 October 2021)

---

DAMAGES – Breach of contract for the sale of land – Whether rule in Bain v Fothergill applicable – Whether damages to be measured at time of breach or at a later time – Johnson v Perez (1988) 166 CLR 351; Noske McGinnis (1932) 47 CLR 563; Wroth v Tyler [1974] Ch 30; Holmark Construction Company Pty Ltd v Tsoukaris (1986) 4 BPR 9131; Vouzas v Bleake House Pty Ltd [2012] VSC 534.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr K E W Mihaly	Vernon Da Gama & Associates
For the First Defendant	Ms A Hando	Russell Kennedy
For the Second Defendant	No appearance
For the Third Parties	Mr C Smith	BN Law Limited trading as Barry.Nilsson

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1

Summary of conclusions.................................................................................................................. 2

Factual Background........................................................................................................................... 2

The Contract................................................................................................................................... 2
Plaintiff’s attempts to complete the Contract............................................................................ 4

Procedural history.............................................................................................................................. 8

Pleadings........................................................................................................................................ 8
Delays............................................................................................................................................ 10

Plaintiff’s evidence and submissions.......................................................................................... 15

Additional costs........................................................................................................................... 16
Lost value..................................................................................................................................... 16
Loss of amenity............................................................................................................................ 17

Defendant’s evidence and submissions...................................................................................... 18

Third parties evidence and submissions..................................................................................... 22

Plaintiff submissions in response................................................................................................ 25

Consideration.................................................................................................................................... 28

Does the rule in Bain v Fothergill apply?.................................................................................. 28
What damages are recoverable?............................................................................................... 33
What is the date of the breach?................................................................................................. 35
What is the date of the assessment of lost value?................................................................... 36
What is the lost value?................................................................................................................ 41
Additional costs........................................................................................................................... 44
Rent...................................................................................................................................... 44
Finance costs....................................................................................................................... 45
Legal costs thrown away.................................................................................................. 46

Loss of amenity............................................................................................................................ 47

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 47

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The plaintiff seeks an assessment of his damages pursuant to order 51 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) (Rules). The plaintiff was the purchaser under a contract of sale under which the first defendant (I will call her the defendant)[1] agreed to sell to the plaintiff the property at 71 Damask Drive, Tarneit, Victoria (Property). On 12 April 2019 Judgment was entered for the plaintiff against the defendant for damages for breach of contract in a sum to be assessed.
[1]Early in the proceeding the Registrar of Titles informed the Court he did not intend to appear and later he was dismissed from the proceeding, although the title of the proceeding remained as it is.

The defendant has brought third party proceedings against Hillside Property Conveyancing Pty Ltd (Hillside) who acted for her in the conveyancing transaction, and Zlata Dizdarevic, a director of Hillside and a registered conveyancer. The claims arise from alleged breaches of a duty of care, and misleading or deceptive conduct engaged…

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 Singh v Lugondela

Details

AGLC: Singh v Lugondela [2020] VSC 544
Case: [2020] VSC 544
Decision Date: 31 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Singh v Lugondela involved the parties in dispute over the sale of a parcel of land. The plaintiff, Singh, alleged that the defendant, Lugondela, breached the contract for sale by failing to complete the transaction. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal from a decision rendered by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the rule in Bain v Fothergill was applicable to the case, and if so, whether the damages for the breach of contract should be measured at the time of the breach or at a later time, specifically when the contract was meant to be completed.

The Court examined several precedents, including Johnson v Perez, Noske McGinnis, Wroth v Tyler, Holmark Construction Company Pty Ltd v Tsoukaris, and Vouzas v Bleake House Pty Ltd, to determine the appropriate approach to measuring damages in this context. The Court found that the rule in Bain v Fothergill applied to the case, and damages should be assessed at the time of the intended completion of the contract, as opposed to the time of the breach. This approach was consistent with the reasoning in Johnson v Perez and Noske McGinnis, where the Court held that the measure of damages should reflect the loss suffered due to the failure to complete the contract.

Singh v Lugondela was ultimately decided in favour of the plaintiff, Singh. The Court found that the defendant, Lugondela, was liable for the breach of contract and awarded damages to the plaintiff based on the difference in value of the land at the time of intended completion. The Court held that the damages should be calculated as if the contract had been performed as agreed, taking into account the market conditions at the time of intended completion. The Court's decision provides guidance to parties involved in land sale contracts regarding the appropriate measure of damages in the event of a breach.

Orders