The Victorian Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in finding the parties had agreed to expand the issues to include whether a call option was validly exercised on 17 March 2022 when only the 1 March 2022 exercise was pleaded, but that this error favoured the respondent because the unpleaded issue should never have been determined. The Court upheld the notice of contention, confirming that where one party consistently objects to departure from pleadings, the other party cannot unilaterally rely on unpleaded matters without seeking to amend — even where the relevant evidence is before the court and the opposing party's counsel indicates it could 'meet' the issue if required. On the substantive contractual issues, the Court found no error in the trial judge's conclusions that Dreamland breached its best endeavours obligations under clauses 4.4(a), 4.4(b) and the absolute obligation under clause 4.8(b) of the deed, entitling Navadiya Group to the higher interest rate and validating the first default notice.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.