Artapt Pty Ltd v Royal & Sun Alliance Lenders Mortgage Insurance Limited
[2003] QSC 133
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
Artapt Pty Ltd v Royal & Sun Alliance Lenders Mortgage Insurance Limited[2003] QSC 133
Artapt Pty Ltd v Royal & Sun Alliance Lenders Mortgage Insurance Limited[2003] QSC 133
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JONES J
Application No 104 of 2003
ARTAPT PTY LTD (ACN 065 160 232) | Applicant |
and |
|
ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE LENDERS MORTGAGE INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN 001 825 725) | Respondent |
CAIRNS
DATE 14/04/2003
JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR: Well, gentlemen, I have come to the view that there is a serious question to be tried in this matter and I must say that my decision was finely balanced, but ultimately there is evidence before me that a valuation of the premises was given at a much higher level than the premises actually sold for.
That valuation was not by one valuer, but by a couple of valuers. There is evidence before me of reconsideration of the valuation after a failed auction, and even on reconsideration the price expected on sale was substantially higher than what was achieved.
The outcome of the first auction where only two people appeared rather bespoke a lack of attention to the marketing. It might, however, have been a reflection of the timing of the auction or perhaps of the simple lack of interest in that particular property. These are matters that are not clear on the limited material before me. The circumstances leading to the second auction, though better attended, are not free from comment and perhaps criticism.
Whilst I make those comments, one has to take into account also the other evidence which is before me of the perhaps difficult period in the real estate market in Cairns when this premises were being put up for sale.
I nonetheless have come to the view that there is a genuine dispute about the timing, marketing and advice given in relation to the sale. In coming to that view it is not to be thought that I am anyway commenting upon the prospects of success of either party in the resolution of the dispute.
These cases, from the applicant's point of view, are notoriously difficult and made more difficult in the circumstances of this case where the persons endeavouring to organise the sale, albeit doing it at the distance of Sydney and Melbourne, appear to have taken a number of steps to ensure that the property was reasonably marketed. Whether there were other steps that they could or should have been taken is a matter which will no doubt be argued in more detail when this dispute is resolved.
Using my discretion on the material before me I have come to the view that there is a serious question to be tried and that the statutory demand ought to be set aside.
Question of costs?
…
HIS HONOUR: I will make no order for costs.