Chris Baskerville.
They’ve got the judgment, the orders for interest and for costs, including indemnity costs from February 11. All Chris Baskerville and Glenn Crisp need to do is get paid.
Is there a doubt? On the face of it, no. The loser in this litigation is former Melbourne councillor Intaj Khan, a property developer with political ambitions no less.
While Khan might benefit from a sit down with Salim Mehajer for insights into the principle of conflict of interest – during visiting hours of course – there’s at this stage no suggestion he can’t cope with the fiscal avalanche sent his way this week by Justice Richard Attiwill QC in Copia Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) v Aintree Major Town Shopping Centre Pty Ltd [2025] VSC 268.
Judgement debt. Interest. And the costs of this litigation, which Baskerville and Crisp commenced in 2024 in their capacities as liquidators of Copia Developments Pty Ltd (Copia), one of the many entities which form part of the controversial Remi Group to which the Jirsch Sutherland pair are also appointed.
Back in 2019 Copia entered into a contract to purchase a 24.6-hectare site at Rockbank in Melbourne’s west from Khan’s Aintree Major Town Shopping Centre Pty Ltd.
Over the course of the next 13 months Copia handed over a $3 million deposit and a first instalment of $1.5 million but that’s as far is it went.
On August 17, 2021, Khan issued a rescission notice, terminated the contract, kept the deposit and the instalment and sat back.
He didn’t sue Copia for damages. Didn’t seek to prove in the winding up. But as Justice Attiwill found, the relevant clause in the contract does not allow for such laxity to be rewarded.
“The purpose of the clause is to strike a balance between the right of the plaintiff to the instalment of the purchase price it has paid, given the contract has ended and it does not have possession, and the right of the defendant to damages for the plaintiff’s breach,” the judge said.
“The proper construction of cl 28.4(d) is that it only has effect if the defendant takes action in accordance with cl 28.4(c), including within two years of the contract ending,” the judge said.
Khan’s dithering now means he’ll have to return the $1.5 million instalment plus interest, which his honour calculated at $262,192.00. He’ll also have to pay the liquidators’ costs well as his own.
Presumably, Baskerville and Crisp were confident when they commenced the litigation that Khan has the capacity to pay. One thing we can be sure of is that they’ll not be slow in enforcing judgment.
Further reading:
Be the first to comment on "Remi liquidators get a win with instalment clawback"