Edelsten sues, buyer claims he was misled in property deal
But the defendant, Jacques Daggian, has hit back with allegations of deceptive and misleading conduct by the real estate agent who worked for the disgraced former doctor, claiming he was misled about the characteristics of the property.
Norman South Pty Ltd, a company owned by Mr Edelsten, sold the office warehouse in Glen Huntly to Mr Daggian on April 10, 2012. But Mr Daggian cancelled the $83,000 deposit cheque and rescinded the contract three days later.
Norman South is claiming $173,733.83 for the deposit, costs, rates, taxes, insurance, bank interest, and fees and charges, according to Supreme Court documents.
But Mr Daggian alleges the estate agent, Tim Blackett of Kay & Burton, engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by making "representations and associated silences" on behalf of Norman South.
Despite its former role as an office/warehouse, the property is zoned Residential 1.
"Blackett said words to the effect that the land would be suitable for immediate commercial occupation and/or was silent as to whether the land was not in fact approved for, or presently able to be used for commercial occupants and/or had pre-existing rights of commercial use," Mr Daggian said.
A bid at mediation failed in July and a directions hearing is now scheduled for mid-September.
Last year, Norman South was embroiled in a legal stoush over a $5000 loan Mr Edelsten had extended to a woman he met on the website sugardaddyforme.com.
cvedelago@fairfaxmedia.com.au
Twitter: @chrisvedelago
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
Geoffrey Edelsten, through his company Norman South Pty Ltd, is suing a buyer who backed out of an $830,000 commercial property deal. The buyer cancelled an $83,000 deposit cheque and rescinded the contract three days after the sale.
The buyer, Jacques Daggian, has countered by alleging misleading and deceptive conduct by the real estate agent Tim Blackett of Kay & Burton. He says he was misled about the property’s characteristics and the agent made representations or remained silent about issues.
Norman South is claiming $173,733.83, which the company says covers the deposit, costs, rates, taxes, insurance, bank interest, and fees and charges, according to Supreme Court documents.
The buyer says agent Tim Blackett represented that the land would be suitable for immediate commercial occupation or was silent about whether the land was actually approved for commercial use or had pre-existing commercial rights.
Yes. Although the building had formerly been used as an office/warehouse, the property is zoned Residential 1, a fact at the centre of the buyer’s allegations about suitability for commercial occupants.
The sale to Mr Daggian took place on April 10, 2012; the buyer cancelled the deposit cheque and rescinded the contract three days later. A mediation attempt failed in July, and a directions hearing was scheduled for mid-September.
This dispute highlights the importance of checking zoning and planning approvals, verifying agent statements in writing, and doing thorough due diligence before completing a commercial property purchase—issues central to the buyer’s allegations in this case.
Yes. The article notes that last year Norman South was involved in a separate legal stoush over a $5,000 loan Geoffrey Edelsten had extended to a woman he met on the website sugardaddyforme.com.
Call 1300 880 160
Start a chat
Schedule a call
