Ugly legal fight over luxury $3.3m waterfront home

One of the vendors of a luxury $3.3m Sunshine Coast home has failed in their latest legal bid to avoid handing over the property to the buyers - 18 months after the contract was signed.

The home at 27 Cuba Court Parrearra.

One of the vendors of a luxury $3.3m waterfront Sunshine Coast home who signed a contract to sell last year but later claimed the contract was terminated, has become upset in court after she failed in her latest legal bid to avoid handing over the title deeds to the purchasers.

Andrew John Britton told the state’s highest court last week that his wife Michelle Susan Britton was “quite upset” after the couple claimed they would “lose their house” and the sale was “forced” unless they succeeded in the latest court application.

The couple unsuccessfully applied to the state’s highest court in a last-ditch bid to get the court to order a “stay” of a Supreme Court order for them to complete the sales contract.

The waterfront home at the centre of the legal battle.

They wanted to temporarily suspend the June 23 order of Justice Paul Freeburn ruling that buyers Joshua Mark Storey and wife Samantha Ruth Erskine Storey were entitled to specific performance of the January 31, 2024 contract to buy the Parrearra home for $3,264,000.

But in his decision handed down on July 17, Justice Thomas Bradley threw out the Brittons’ application, stating that they had failed to show their case was appropriate for a stay.

He ruled that the sale of the home to the Storeys was not a “forced sale” as the Britton’s claimed, but instead the Brittons must perform their promise to sell which was contained in the contract.

“The prejudice that would accrue to (the Storeys) outweighs that that the (Brittons) fear that they will suffer,” Justice Bradley of the Court of Appeal ruled.

The Storeys have been living in the Cuba Court home since February last year, after it was agreed by the Brittons that they could move in after they paid a $326,000 deposit and before a delayed settlement until August last year.

The Brittons threatened to have the Storeys evicted.

But the Brittons failed to settle in August, Justice Bradley noted in his decision.

He said the Brittons had been in breach of the sale contract since at least as early as the failed August settlement.

The dispute became ugly with the Brittons threatening to have the Storeys evicted from the home, although these threats did not persist, Justice Bradley noted.

The court heard the women both recorded each other on their mobile phones while each claiming the right to be at the home, with seven videos all tendered in the Supreme Court.

Britton can be seen to be “demanding” that the buyers leave the property on March 4 last year, the court heard.

The waterfront home.

In August last year, Mr and Ms Storey sued Mr and Ms Britton seeking a court order for specific performance of the contract.

The Brittons also submitted to the appeal court that a stay should be granted because the property was now worth up to $4.5m, but the Brittons had sold for $3.26m about 18 months ago.

“Enforcement of the order merely requires the appellants to transfer the title for the agreed price,” Justice Bradley ruled.

“Changes in the market value of the property since the contract was entered into are no basis for a stay,” he stated in his decision.

“Any positive change in the market conditions between January 2024 and now cannot, in any sensible meaning, result in the submission that the first appellant puts, which is that it would amount to a financial catastrophe,” Justice Bradley stated.

The property is now worth up to $4.5 million.

Mrs Britton told the court in written submissions that she was “at risk of losing” the Parrearra home and another Gold Coast home where she currently lives with her husband because they were in default on their ANZ bank mortgage.

Mrs Britton told the court that ANZ bank told her “there is no current foreclosure auction” set despite the fact that she has only been paying her mortgage “where possible”, and the mortgage is with the bank’s “financial hardship team”.

An appeal of the decision by the Brittons remains on foot.

Originally published as Ugly legal fight over luxury $3.3m waterfront home