Sunland fails in $14m lawsuit over Dubai deal
Sunland's attempt to overturn three Supreme Court of Victoria judgments against it has been comprehensively rejected 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.
The decision has been welcomed by both men, who claim the judgment "conclusively documents" their innocence.
"I remain under house arrest while I focus on my appeal in Dubai," Joyce said in a statement. "I will continue my efforts to bring the findings of the Australian courts to the attention of Dubai and ask that the Australian government use every means at its disposal to help me in that effort."
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 also 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 judgment handed down by Chief Justice Marilyn Warren said.
The developer's bid to avoid paying the legal costs of the Australians was also rejected.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
The Court of Appeal rejected Sunland’s bid to overturn three Supreme Court of Victoria judgments and refused its attempt to recover $14 million from businessmen Matt Joyce and Angus Reed. The appeal confirmed many of Sunland’s trial claims were groundless and left the developer facing a substantial legal costs bill.
Matt Joyce and Angus Reed are Australian businessmen who were, in absentia, convicted in Dubai and sentenced to 10 years’ jail over their involvement in a $63 million waterfront property transaction in 2007. The men have welcomed the Australian Court of Appeal decision, saying it supports their claim of innocence.
An anti-suit injunction is a court order that prevents a party from pursuing legal proceedings in another jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Victoria issued an anti-suit injunction that stopped Sunland from taking civil action in Dubai and also ordered Sunland to pay Joyce and Reed’s special legal costs.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the earlier rulings that it would be vexatious or oppressive for Sunland to run parallel civil proceedings in Victoria and Dubai. The courts ruled that pursuing those overlapping actions was inappropriate and that additional evidence of the Dubai criminal convictions would not have changed the appeal outcome.
No. The Supreme Court of Victoria already blocked Sunland from pursuing the civil case in Australia and issued an anti-suit injunction preventing it from suing the men in Dubai. The Court of Appeal upheld those decisions, so Sunland cannot currently take those civil actions in either forum.
The ruling leaves Sunland facing a large legal costs bill. The courts confirmed Sunland must pay the Australians’ special legal costs, and the developer’s attempts to avoid paying those costs were rejected.
Sunland argued the Dubai criminal ruling included an order that money be 'returned,' which it said was a valuable right it should be allowed to enforce. The Court of Appeal did not admit the Dubai conviction evidence as further evidence in the appeal and stated that even if that evidence were considered it would not have changed the appeal’s outcome.
Investors should note the factual outcomes reported: Sunland lost its appeal, was blocked from pursuing civil action in Dubai, and faces significant legal costs. It’s sensible for investors to monitor Sunland’s official announcements and financial statements for any updates on legal liabilities or provisions related to this matter.
Call 1300 880 160
Start a chat
Schedule a call
