Nathan van Berlo launches court action over failed $1.43m property deal
Former Crows captain and current assistant coach Nathan van Berlo has launched Supreme Court action over a failed $1.43 million property deal.
Police & Courts
Don't miss out on the headlines from Police & Courts. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Former Adelaide Crows captain and current assistant coach Nathan van Berlo has launched Supreme Court action over a failed deal to purchase a $1.43 million block of prime beachfront land at Henley Beach.
Van Berlo, a successful property developer, is seeking to either have the contract enforced or obtain damages from the vendor of the land, which is located on the Esplanade.
Van Berlo, who retired from playing in 2016 after a decade long career which included three years as Crows captain, signed a contract to purchase the land for $1.43m in May, 2021.
The contract was with vendor Kim Maree Rennie, who purchased the Esplanade property for $5.68m in January 2020 and proceeded to lodge a development application with the City of Charles Sturt to bulldoze the existing home and subdivide the 1433 sqm block into three allotments.
However, the development application to subdivide the block into the three allotments was not approved because the council was not satisfied with access points to each allotment and asked for the application to be revised.
Van Berlo’s statement of claim says he entered into a contract to purchase one of the three allotments in May, 2021 – paying a deposit of $50,000 – with the knowledge the vendor had to resubmit the development plan to alleviate the council’s concerns.
His Supreme Court statement of claim contends Ms Rennie “failed to lodge a Plan of Proposed Division with the requested proposed amendments to council, thereby preventing settlement.’’
“The respondent has also wrongly purported to terminate the contract which termination has been rejected by the applicant,’’ it states.
The claim states that van Berlo dealt with Ms Rennie’s agents, the Foster Property Group, with whom he had previously undertaken five property developments.
It states in December 2020 the Foster Property Group informed van Berlo orally of the issue with the driveway access and said “words to the effect that ‘everything was on track’ and the development plan of the proposed subdivision needed to be amended “slightly’’ for it to be accepted and when that was done acceptance “was a mere formality.’’
It states “not at any time’’ was an amended development plan lodged “which was in accordance with the driveway access options preferred by council or any amended plan at all.’’
Van Berlo, who wants to complete the sale contract, is seeking an order from the court that Ms Rennie “specifically perform her obligations’’ and submit the revised development plan to council “which contains either or both of the preferred driveway access options notified by council”.
“In the alternative, the applicant is entitled to damages for breach of contract, to be assessed as at the date of trial, in an amount equal to the difference between the price payable under the contract and the current value of the land,’’ the claim states.
The claim also states the land subdivision and sale was “conduct in trade or commerce’’ in that Ms Rennie “was not living at the residential property on the land’’ and she had “negotiated and entered into the contract for commercial purposes, being the purpose of profiting from a subdivision and sale of land for redevelopment.’’
In a defence filed with the court, Ms Rennie’s lawyers admit a contract was entered into to sell the block of land to van Berlo on May 7, 2021 – and they also admit the contract was terminated on December 21, 2021.
The defence states the “termination of the contract was valid because the (subdivision) plan was and/or would be refused by the council.’’
It denies van Berlo has suffered “the loss and damage’’ pleaded in his claim and that Ms Rennie engaged in conduct that was “trade or commerce’’ as the transaction involved the sale of a portion of her residential property.
Lawyers acting for van Berlo and Ms Rennie declined to comment on the court action when contacted by The Advertiser.