| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL COURT
COMMERCIAL LIST
S ECI 2023 05674
BETWEEN:
| SRINIVAS PTY LTD (ACN 605 489 969) & ANOR (according to the attached Schedule) | Plaintiffs |
| and | |
| VANSAN CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD (ACN 104 934 732) & ORS (according to the attached Schedule) | Defendants |
---
JUDGE: | Matthews J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 5 and 7 May 2025, last written submissions received 21 May 2025 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 27 June 2025 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Srinivas Pty Ltd v Vansan Construction Pty Ltd |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VSC 381 |
---
CONTRACTS – Plaintiffs seek to enforce loan agreements and guarantees where no repayments had been made – Non-fulfilment of condition precedent – Whether condition is a condition precedent to formation or instead to performance – Waiver – Whether requirement for waiver to be in writing can itself be waived – Non-compliance with some procedural requirements – Whether payments made by plaintiffs were made pursuant to the loan agreements – Whether borrowers were in default at time plaintiffs sought repayment – If payments not made pursuant to loan agreements, whether restitution claim arises – Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394 – Civil Mining & Construction Pty Ltd v Wiggins Island Coal Export Terminal Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 85 – Canberra Advance Bank Ltd v Benny (1991) 115 ALR 207 – Perri v Coolangatta Investments Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 537.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiffs | Mr G Lubofsky of counsel | MST Lawyers |
| For the Defendants | Mr S Prendergast of counsel | Vincent J Ryan |
Contents
A.. Introduction and overview
A.1 The parties
A.2 Overview of this case
A.3 Background to the dealings between the parties
A.4 The Loan Agreements
A.4.1 Entry into the First Loan Agreement and other transaction documents
A.4.2 Entry into the Second Agreement
A.4.3 Entry into the Third Loan Agreement
A.4.4 Key terms of the Loan Agreements
A.4.5 Key terms of the Guarantee
A.5 Subsequent developments
B.. Pleadings
C.. Conduct of the trial
D.. Issues for consideration
E... Does the non-fulfilment of the conditions precedent or the lack of written waiver thereof have the effect that the Payments were not made pursuant to the Loan Agreements?
E.1 The plaintiffs’ submissions
E.1.1 Waiver
E.1.2 The nature of this condition precedent – it is limited in effect
E.1.3 Estoppel by convention
E.2 The defendants’ submissions
E.2.1 Waiver
E.2.2 The nature of this condition precedent – its non-fulfilment means that the parties are not bound by the Loan Agreements
E.2.3 Estoppel by convention
E.3 The plaintiffs’ submissions in reply
E.3.1 Waiver
E.3.2 Nature of the condition precedent and the effect of its non-fulfilment
E.4 The defendants’ submissions in response to the plaintiffs’ reply
E.5 Analysis and consideration
E.5.1 The nature of the condition precedent
E.5.2 Waiver
E.5.3 Estoppel
F... Does the lack of written requests from the defendants for the Advances and/or the lack of written confirmation from the plaintiffs of the fact of the Advances have the effect…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Srinivas Pty Ltd v Vansan Construction 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] VSC 381
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether certain conditions were conditions precedent to the formation of the agreements or to their performance. The court also needed to assess whether the requirement for a waiver to be in writing could be waived and whether non-compliance with some procedural requirements invalidated the agreements. Additionally, the court considered whether payments made by Srinivas were pursuant to the loan agreements, and if Vansan was in default when Srinivas sought repayment. Finally, if the payments were not pursuant to the loan agreements, the court needed to determine if a restitution claim arose.
The court found that the conditions in question were conditions precedent to the performance of the loan agreements, not to their formation. It was held that the requirement for a waiver to be in writing could not be waived. While some procedural requirements had not been met, this did not invalidate the agreements. The court determined that the payments made by Srinivas were not pursuant to the loan agreements. Consequently, Vansan was not in default when Srinivas sought repayment. As the payments were not made pursuant to the loan agreements, the court found that no restitution claim arose.
The court dismissed Srinivas's claims and ordered that Srinivas pay Vansan's costs of the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.