Kalotihos v Bulzomi [2007] VCAT 1734 | Case summary

The Applicant referred me to the speeches of various Members of Parliament in Hansard as showing that Parliament intended that disputes over land should be dealt with by VCAT in order to save time and expense. He does not wish to go to the Courts. He wishes this dispute to be resolved quickly, so that he may make arrangements to pay out his creditors. He refers me to section 228 of the Act, which allows this Tribunal to make "any order which it thinks fit to ensure that a just and fair sale or division of land or goods occurs".
However, this Tribunal may only exercise jurisdiction if it has been conferred by Parliament. In my view section 228 gives me no jurisdiction in this case. Were I to find otherwise, this Tribunal would need to make orders compelling Macquarie, and possibly the caveator, Citipower, to facilitate the sale or division of the property claimed. In my view this would be an absurd result. The rights and obligations of these parties in this sophisticated commercial development should be dealt with in a court of law, where all legal and equitable remedies are available. Parliament cannot have contemplated that disputes as to future entitlements arising out of multi-storey city developments would be affected by this remedial legislation.
Accordingly, I find this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear this case and the application dated 18 May 2007 is therefore dismissed.

More recent authority citing this case with approval and confirming the proposition that an option to purchase creates an equitable interest in land can be found in the High Court decision of Barba v Gas and Fuel Corporation of Victoria [1976] HCA 60; (1976) 136 CLR 120 at 137.
The purpose of this application is therefore to obtain an order that the option to purchase the penthouse contained in the Deed of Understanding be auctioned and the proceeds of auction of that option be divided between the parties, the relative proportions to be the subject of further consideration should this jurisdictional argument be successful.
He refers me to the practice of purchasers of "off the plan" properties on-selling their properties. He says some other purchasers of units in this Macquarie development have already on-sold their interests to third parties. He wishes to have an opportunity to do the same.
The multi-storey development is almost completed. On the Respondent's material, it will be ready for occupation by November of this year. The Applicant has inspected the penthouse. He wants to be able to sell his interest in it, so he can use the proceeds to pay his creditors and thereby escape bankruptcy.
It is clear that Mr Kalotihos could sell his contractual interest in the Deed of Understanding, if he could find a purchaser for it, and if he was entitled to do so under the Deed, without requiring any order of this Tribunal. His problem is that, under the Deed, the Respondent has the power to veto the sale. Mr Kalotihos told me that at one stage he did have a purchaser, but was unable to sell because of the refusal of the Respondent to agree to the sale.
Alternatively Bulzomi and Kalotihis could agree together to sell their interest in the Deed of Understanding to a third party. As I understand it, Bulzomi refuses to do so.
However, before any decision can be made by this Tribunal as to the appropriate remedy, the Applicant must show three things. He must show that he has an interest in land. The Respondent says:-

Kalotihos v Bulzomi

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (1 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (3)

Kalotihos v Bulzomi (Real Property) [2007] VCAT 1734 (6 September 2007)