Gold Coast developer Sunland has lost its bid to claim $14 million in damages from Australian businessmen Matt Joyce and Angus Reed in a stinging legal decision.
Sunland’s attempt to overturn three Supreme Court judgements against it was comprehensively rejected today by the Court of Appeal, which confirmed the ‘‘groundless’’ basis of many of the developer’s trial claims and left it facing a massive costs bill.
Joyce and Reed (in absentia) were recently found guilty of fraud and sentenced to 10 years jail in Dubai for their involvement in a $63 million waterfront property transaction in the Gulf state in 2007.
Sunland’s attempt to pursue a civil case in Australia against the men to recoup the $14 million it lost in the deal had been blocked by the Supreme Court. That court also ordered an anti-suit injunction that stopped the developer from taking civil action in Dubai, as well as forced it to pay the men’s special legal costs.
Part of Sunland’s appeal involved a novel argument that the anti-suit injunction should be overturned because the Dubai criminal ruling included an order that the money be ‘‘returned’’, which was a ‘‘valuable right’’ that the listed developer should not be restrained from enforcing.
But the Court of Appeal upheld the earlier decisions, agreeing that it was vexatious or oppressive for Sunland to pursue parallel proceedings in Victoria and Dubai.
"The evidence sought to be adduced by Sunland, that after the hearing of the appeal, the Dubai Court had convicted and sentenced Reed and Joyce to 10 years' imprisonment and ordered that they return a sum of money and pay a fine, was not admitted as further evidence in the appeal, but even if it were, it would not have altered the determination of the appeal," the judgement handed down by Chief Justice Marilyn Warren said.
The developer’s bid to avoid paying the legal costs of the Australians was also rejected.
‘‘The circumstances in which a special costs order may be justified include cases in which a proceeding is commenced or continued either for some ulterior motive or in wilful disregard of the facts or clearly established law,’’ the judgement said.