A & J Morphett Nominees Pty Ltd v JBT Lawyers Pty Ltd & Anor [2022] VSC 238 (17 May 2022): role of Stakeholder, where deposit held by solicitor as stakeholder on behalf of both parties to sale transaction & failed to refund deposit to purchaser who validly terminated the contract.
May 22, 2022
In A & J Morphett Nominees Pty Ltd v JBT Lawyers Pty Ltd & Anor [2022] VSC 238 Justice Dixon in upholding an appeal made important statements for practitioners on the role of stakeholders.
FACTS
On 26 November 2018 the appellant and Chloe Estelle Pty Ltd entered into the contract with the appellant paying the deposit of $42,000 to the respondent on 6 December 2018 [4].
On 21 March 2019, the appellant by written notice terminated the contract and requested that the respondent repay the deposit to it [4].
The appellant, A & J Morphett Nominees Pty Ltd, commenced proceedings against Chloe Estelle Pty Ltd, as first defendant, and the respondent, JBT Lawyers Pty Ltd, as second defendant in the Magistrates Court. In its defence the respondent admitted that it received the deposit sum as a stakeholder as alleged by the appellant [6].
On 24 June 2019, the appellant entered default judgment in the proceeding against Chloe Estelle Pty Ltd, which included an amount for interest and costs [7]. The appellant did not recover against Chloe Estelle Pty Ltd as it was and on 18 July 2019, an administrator was appointed and it was subsequently ordered to be wound up. The liquidators made no claim for the deposit.
It was never been in dispute that the respondent received that sum as a stakeholder for the appellant and Chloe Estelle Pty Ltd [3].
On 29 March 2019, the Federal Circuit Court, per Small J,made an order in a Family Law dispute between different parties. It relevantly Read the rest of this entry »