Media personality Mia Freedman is fighting to remain in residence at her $12 million eastern Sydney home, after a court was told a contract to buy the property was rescinded amid a series of disputes with its owner, including who should pay for replacing the roof.
Freedman, 48, who is also known as Mia Lavigne, and her husband Jason Lavigne entered into a deed in December 2014 which allowed them to live at the prestige property in Bellevue Hill with the option of eventually purchasing it. They have lived there since early 2015.
Mia Freedman and her husband Jason Lavigne in 2012.Credit: Michele Mossop
Since, the pair allege, they have suffered ongoing water leaks from the "defective" roof, which is "in such a state of dilapidation" it needs to be replaced. They say they have been required to carry out "significant repairs" to ensure no water gets in.
The owner, Somna Lala Kumar, denies the roof is in such disrepair.
The Lavignes – who founded news and lifestyle website Mamamia – entered into a contract to buy the home in December last year; however, three months later a courier delivered a notice that the contract had been terminated or rescinded.
The pair are suing the London-based Ms Kumar in the NSW Supreme Court, seeking damages, interest, costs, an order that she attend to settlement of the property, and an order the rescission of the contract was invalid.
The Freedman residence in Bellevue Hill.Credit: Domain
In a cross-claim, Ms Kumar is seeking a judgment for possession of the property as well as a $600,000 deposit and unpaid rent of $944.33 per day.
On Monday, the Lavignes' barrister Gregory Sirtes SC told the court the "unbending" vendors demanded $13.2 million to settle the sale including a purchase price of $12 million and allowed no concessions, describing the situation as "$13.2 million or the highway".
Mr Sirtes said his clients have been accused of failing to pay the $600,000 deposit, however it was mistakenly paid to Ms Kumar's husband Joseph Jayaraj by solicitors in 2016 and Mr Jayaraj did not give it back.
This led to Mr Lavigne negotiating "offsets" and "work arounds" with Mr Jayaraj, including withholding rent and other payments, Mr Sirtes said.
He said Mr Jayaraj frequently communicated with Mr Lavigne about the property, including agreeing to contribute $195,000 to the roof repair, until Ms Kumar "inject[ed] herself" into the situation and wrote in an email, "I've had more than a few sleepless nights about the roof".
In the email read to the court, Ms Kumar said it was "not fair or reasonable" for her and her husband to contribute so much for the repair, given she'd already spent "some $70,000" on the roof in recent years.
"Rather than continuing to butt heads ... perhaps we bat this to the lawyers," she said.
Mr Sirtes said his clients were "ready, willing and able" to settle on the house and had millions of dollars in their account, but the defendants have claimed his clients are not ready to settle "because on the day we didn’t turn up with a cheque for $13.2 million".
He said one dispute in the case will be the level of disrepair of the roof, with an expert for Ms Kumar expected to say it does not need to be replaced and can be fixed for $43,000.
An expert for the Lavignes is expected to say the roof has been "past the point of repair for some years", with evidence of long-term corrosion. The estimated replacement cost is $251,380.
The hearing continues.
Get our Morning & Evening Edition newsletters
The most important news, analysis and insights delivered to your inbox at the start and end of each day. Sign up to The Sydney Morning Herald’s newsletter here, to The Age’s newsletter here and Brisbane Times' here.