Sunland loses appeal to claim $14m
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 Court of Appeal decision has been welcomed by both men, who claim the judgment "conclusively documents our 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 forcing 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 court also agreed that evidence provided by a Sunland executive at the Dubai trial had been "fundamentally misleading" and contained "untruthful exaggerations". The developer's bid to avoid paying the legal costs of the Australians was also rejected.
It is not yet clear whether Sunland will challenge the ruling in the High Court.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
The Victorian Court of Appeal rejected Sunland’s bid to overturn three Supreme Court judgments and refused its attempt to reclaim $14 million from businessmen Matt Joyce and Angus Reed. The court confirmed many of Sunland’s trial claims were “groundless” and left the developer facing a substantial costs bill.
Matt Joyce and Angus Reed are Australian businessmen involved in the disputed waterfront deal. They were found guilty of fraud in Dubai relating to a $63 million 2007 transaction and were sentenced in Dubai. After the Court of Appeal decision in Australia, both men welcomed the ruling and said it ‘conclusively documents our innocence’—a claim reported in the article.
An anti-suit injunction is a court order that stops a party from pursuing related proceedings in another jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Victoria granted an anti-suit injunction preventing Sunland from taking civil action in Dubai, and the Court of Appeal upheld that injunction, finding it would be vexatious or oppressive for Sunland to pursue parallel proceedings.
The Court of Appeal agreed with earlier findings that evidence given by a Sunland executive at the Dubai trial had been “fundamentally misleading” and contained “untruthful exaggerations,” undermining parts of Sunland’s case and contributing to the court’s view that many claims were groundless.
Sunland faces a large costs bill after losing the appeal and was ordered to pay the men’s special legal costs. For investors, this means potential direct financial impact from legal expenses and possible reputational damage—both factors to monitor in company announcements and future financial reporting.
At present Sunland’s civil case in Australia was blocked and the anti-suit injunction prevents it from pursuing parallel civil action in Dubai. The article notes it is not yet clear whether Sunland will seek to challenge the ruling further in the High Court.
Sunland argued that the Dubai criminal ruling included an order that the money be “returned,” which it said was a valuable right that should allow it to enforce recovery. The Court of Appeal rejected that line of argument and agreed it would be oppressive to pursue parallel proceedings.
Investors should watch whether Sunland appeals to the High Court, any formal announcements about legal costs and provisions, developments in the Dubai criminal appeal, and company statements about the financial or reputational impact. These updates will be most relevant to assessing potential risks to Sunland’s balance sheet and market perception.
Call 1300 880 160
Start a chat
Schedule a call
