Hotel's reluctant buyer to pay $500,000
Businessman Steven Vouzas refused to settle on the $11 million Beaconsfield Parade property, alleging he had been deceived about Collingwood Football Club's plans to continue to run the hotel.
But the Supreme Court found it was not misleading to advertise the Beach Hotel with "a long lease to a AAA tenant" even though owners Bleake House Hotel Pty Ltd knew the club had already entered an agreement to sell their leasehold to a new operator.
"A reasonable buyer in Vouzas' position would appreciate that there could be no certainty Collingwood would always remain tenant," Justice Cameron Macaulay said.
The hotel was put on the market in September 2008, with the lease to the Pies due to expire in 2021. Not disclosed in the vendor's statement or marketing materials was that a "heads of agreement" had already been signed to transfer the leasehold to well-known hospitality operator Ricky Munday.
Mr Vouzas, claiming he was enticed into the deal based on a verbal and written "classic half-truth" about the leasing arrangements, sued Bleake House and estate agents Kelemen Commercial to recover the deposit and costs.
But the court ruled there was no legal obligation for a vendor to disclose what amounted to only a "conditional" lease assignment.
Justice Macaulay also found that Mr Vouzas was "aware of the possibility" that Collingwood might transfer the lease due to discussions he had with the estate agent, his own solicitors and media reports at the time.
"Whether he knew that possibility existed because a conditional agreement had been signed, or on some other basis, makes little practical difference," the judge said.
"Bleake House correctly represented the existing lease position which, of itself, did not and would not have conveyed anything to a reasonable purchaser about the prospect of Collingwood continuing to be the tenant of the premises."
Justice Macaulay also found Mr Vouzas' "probable reason" for seeking to avoid settlement was his inability to obtain finance rather than his allegations about deceptive conduct. He was ordered to pay $500,000 in damages. Ricky Munday never completed the leasehold transaction with Collingwood and his pub group collapsed in early 2010.
cvedelago@theage.com.au
Twitter: @chrisvedelago
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
The main issue was a dispute over the disclosure of tenancy agreements during the sale of the Albert Park Beach Hotel. Businessman Steven Vouzas claimed he was misled about the Collingwood Football Club's plans to continue running the hotel.
Steven Vouzas refused to settle on the $11 million Beach Hotel property because he alleged he was deceived about the Collingwood Football Club's plans to remain as tenants.
The Supreme Court ruled that it was not misleading to advertise the Beach Hotel with a 'long lease to a AAA tenant' despite knowing that the leasehold was set to be transferred to a new operator.
No, the court found there was no legal obligation for vendors to disclose what amounted to only a 'conditional' lease assignment.
Justice Cameron Macaulay stated that a reasonable buyer would understand there could be no certainty that Collingwood would always remain the tenant, and that the existing lease position was correctly represented.
Steven Vouzas was ordered to pay $500,000 in damages, as the court found his probable reason for avoiding settlement was his inability to obtain finance rather than deceptive conduct allegations.
No, Ricky Munday never completed the leasehold transaction with Collingwood, and his pub group collapsed in early 2010.
The case set a legal precedent that limits the information vendors are compelled to disclose about tenancy agreements when marketing a property.

