Tram v Innerwest Property Partners Pty Ltd

District Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

Tram v Innerwest Property Partners Pty Ltd & Anor [2024] NSWDC 155

Hearing dates:

26 March and 19 April 2024

Date of orders:

8 May 2024

Decision date:

08 May 2024

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Before:

Weber SC DCJ

Decision:

See Orders

Catchwords:

CIVIL – Enforceability of a Deed – Questions of Illegality

Legislation Cited:

Cheques Act 1986 (Cth)

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)

Corporations Act 2000 (Cth)

Duties Act 1997 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Haxton (2012) 246 CLR 498

Iannotti v Corsaro (1984) 36 SASR 137

Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298

REW08 Projects Pty Ltd v PNC Lifestyle Investments Pty Ltd (2017) 95 NSWLR 458

Thomas v Hollier (1984) 156 CLR

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Plaintiff: Tan Hieu Tram
First Defendant: Innerwest Property Partners Pty Ltd
Second Defendant: Mohammad Abedin

Representation:

Counsel:
Plaintiff: Mr R Size
Defendants: Mr D Brezniak

Solicitors:
Plaintiff: David Leamey Solicitor and Barrister
Defendant: Raihani Mayaz

File Number(s):

2023/165280

Publication restriction:

None

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The plaintiff (Mr Tram) was the sole director of Tram Holdings Pty Ltd (Tram Holdings). Tram Holdings owned a property at 3/164 Darlinghurst Road, Potts Point (the Property). The first defendant (Innerwest) is a company which conducts a real estate agency. The second defendant (Mr Abedin) was its sole director. Mr Abedin’s wife (Ms Tang) also worked for Innerwest. Mr Tram engaged Innerwest to sell the Property.

2. Mr Abedin and Ms Tang found a purchaser for the Property. On 1 August 2022, Mr Tram executed a contract for sale of the Property on behalf of Tram Holdings (the Contract). The Contract stated a purchase price of $3,500,000 including a deposit of $350,000 (CB 48). Completion of the sale occurred on 31 October 2022 (CB 59). Tram Holdings has received the deposit (minus an agency fee of $60,000) and balance of the stated purchase price.

3. Mr Tram asserts that he is entitled to be paid a further $550,000.

4. The basis for this assertion is Mr Tram’s claim that the price stated in the Contract did not represent the true purchase price for the sale of the Property. He gave evidence that Mr Abedin found a buyer who wanted to pay part of the price in cash. He says that Ms Tang negotiated a price of $3,500,000 plus $550,000 in cash.

5. Subsequently, Mr Abedin signed a deed committing both he and Innerwest to pay $550,000 to Mr Tram within 60 days (the Deed) (CB 132); Mr Abedin and Innerwest failed to pay the $550,000 as required in the Deed.

6. Mr Tram’s case is that subsequently Mr Abedin told him that in order to pay the sum of $550,000, he had electronically transferred $100,000 to Mr Tram. He then provided him with a cheque for $450,000 (the Cheque) (CB 67). It seems clear however that the transfer of $100,000 never eventuated, and the Cheque…