Dispute Resolution Valuation Clause in a Business Buy-Out: Can an Independent Expert Be Confined to the Parties’ Existing Valuation Material, and What Fixes the Valuation Date?

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Re Venture Capital Group Pty Ltd [2012] VSC 654 (Supreme Court of Victoria, Commercial and Equity Division), this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

• Court of Hearing: Supreme Court of Victoria, Commercial and Equity Division, Commercial Court, Corporations List
• Presiding Judge: Robson J
• Cause of Action: Contract and dispute resolution agreement enforcement in the context of a proposed buy-out of interests in a group of companies and trusts; pleaded statutory relief under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 232–233 and associated equitable allegations
• Judgment Date: 15 October 2012
• Core Keywords:
  • Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
  • Keyword 2: Expert determination
  • Keyword 3: Valuation clause
  • Keyword 4: Contract by conduct
  • Keyword 5: Estoppel by representation
  • Keyword 6: Implied term and business efficacy

Background

A minority interest-holder (the Plaintiff) and the controlling interests (the Defendants) sought to avoid costly oppression proceedings by agreeing that the Defendants would buy out the Plaintiff’s interests at market value. They adopted a staged valuation mechanism: each side would obtain a valuation, their valuers would meet to narrow disagreements, and unresolved issues would go to an independent expert whose determination would bind both sides. The deal then stalled at the critical moment: the parties could not agree on how the independent expert was permitted to work, particularly whether the expert could look beyond the documents and information originally given to the two party-appointed valuers.

Core Disputes and Claims

• What the Court was required to determine:
  1. Whether there was a binding dispute resolution agreement governing the valuation process and the buy-out.
  2. If the agreement existed, whether it contained a term limiting the independent expert to the material that was available to the parties’ valuers when they prepared their Stage 1 valuations.
• What the Plaintiff sought (in substance):
  • Specific performance of the dispute resolution agreement.
  • Orders under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 233 facilitating a buy-out at a value determined by the agreed process, or alternatively a court-appointed valuer.
  • Related equitable relief against certain Defendants in their capacities controlling a trust structure.
• What the Defendants argued (in substance):
  • The agreement was not binding because essential terms were uncertain.
  • Even if binding, the independent expert was not confined to the same material as the Stage 1 valuers.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The dispute did not begin as a technical argument about valuation methodology. It began as a breakdown in commercial trust and corporate participation.

The Plaintiff held an interest in a group of companies and trusts operating a café business and a franchise business. At a point of conflict, the Plaintiff’s director (acting for the Plaintiff) was removed from a directorship within the group controlled by the Defendants. That removal became a flashpoint: the Plaintiff’s solicitors demanded reinstatement and asserted a larger interest than the Defendants accepted.

The Defendants rejected reinstatement and disputed the extent of the Plaintiff’s unit holding, but offered an alternative path to end the conflict: a clean exit, at market value, through a structured valuation regime. The logic was commercial and procedural at once: instead of litigating oppression claims and fighting over remedies, the real controversy could be reduced to a single number, the value of the Plaintiff’s interests.

This was not merely a promise to negotiate later. It was presented as a workable, staged mechanism:
– Stage 1: each side appoints a valuer and obtains valuations.
– Stage 2: the valuers meet to resolve differences and list unresolved issues.
– Stage 3: an independent expert determines unresolved issues and the resulting valuation binds the parties.

The decisive moments that made litigation inevitable were quiet and common in commercial life:
– The parties did Stage 1.
– The parties did Stage 2.
– When it came to Stage 3, they disagreed about the ground rules for the expert.

The Plaintiff sought to cabin the expert’s power by restricting the expert to the material already provided to the Stage 1 valuers. The Defendants resisted that restriction. Without agreement on the expert’s remit, the mechanism could not be completed, and the buy-out could not proceed. That is how a pragmatic settlement structure turned into a preliminary trial on contract formation, certainty, and implied terms.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Plaintiff’s Main Evidence and Arguments

• Solicitors’ correspondence constituting the settlement and valuation regime:
  • A key letter proposing a staged valuation process and offering a buy-out at market valuation.
  • Subsequent acceptance communications demonstrating agreement to the proposed method.
• Stage 1 valuation report commissioned by the Plaintiff:
  • Prepared by the Plaintiff’s valuer using financial information as at 30 June 2010.
  • Valuation expressed by reference to the group’s financial statements for the year ending 30 June 2010.
  • The Plaintiff relied on the fact that both parties’ valuers used the same valuation date in practice.
• Stage 2 meeting and outcomes:
  • Evidence that the valuers met, attempted to reconcile differences, and identified unresolved issues for Stage 3.
• Core legal submission:
  • The valuation date was fixed by the parties’ conduct.
  • An implied term was necessary to confine the independent expert to the information that had been available to the party-appointed valuers, so the process remained fair, bounded, and commercially workable.

Defendants’ Main Evidence and Arguments

• The same correspondence, but relied upon for a different conclusion:
  • The Defendants accepted parts of the alleged terms but challenged whether all essential terms were agreed.
• Stage 1 valuation report commissioned by the Defendants:
  • Prepared by the Defendants’ valuer and also used accounts as at 30 June 2010.
  • Demonstrated that the Defendants themselves proceeded on the same valuation date at Stage 1.
• Procedural position:
  • The Defendants contended the agreement was void for uncertainty due to missing essential terms, including valuation date and the scope of material for valuation.
  • The Defendants denied that the independent expert was limited to the Stage 1 material.

Core Dispute Points

1. Binding agreement or uncertainty:
   • Was there a concluded dispute resolution agreement capable of enforcement, or was it too uncertain to be binding?
2. Valuation date:
   • If the correspondence did not expressly fix a date, was the date nonetheless agreed by subsequent conduct or established by estoppel?
3. Scope of the independent expert:
   • Was there an implied term that the independent expert must only use the material available to the Stage 1 valuers?
   • Alternatively, was the expert free to request additional source material provided it remained relevant to valuation as at the agreed date?

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

Affidavit practice in commercial disputes often reveals more than the facts. It reveals strategy.

Here, the affidavits served two parallel purposes:
– To present a coherent narrative of how the staged regime emerged from the correspondence and was then acted upon.
– To frame the later disagreement as either a breach of an already-fixed bargain (the Plaintiff’s framing) or an attempt to convert an incomplete arrangement into a binding contract (the Defendants’ framing).

The Plaintiff’s affidavit material worked to stitch together the letters and the parties’ later conduct into a single enforceable agreement, emphasising:
– The three-stage structure as a complete dispute resolution mechanism.
– The reality that both parties instructed valuers to use accounts as at 30 June 2010.
– The commercial expectation that Stage 3 would not become a fresh valuation exercise by ambush.

The Defendants’ approach, by contrast, was to identify gaps and elevate them into essential terms:
– If the valuation date was not stated expressly, the agreement lacked certainty.
– If the expert’s scope of material was not specified, the agreement lacked certainty, or at least could not include the Plaintiff’s proposed limitation.

Strategic Intent Behind the Court’s Procedural Directions

The Court directed a separate trial of preliminary questions. That procedural choice was strategic and efficient:
– It isolated the gatekeeping issues of contract formation, certainty, and the existence of any implied term.
– It avoided the cost of litigating oppression allegations and equitable claims if the valuation mechanism could be confirmed and completed.
– It forced precision: the parties had to particularise the alleged agreement terms and respond point-by-point, making the real controversy crisp enough to decide.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Before the final hearing of the preliminary questions, the Court made procedural orders to narrow the dispute, including:
– Requiring the Plaintiff to specify what documents constituted the dispute resolution agreement and to set out its terms.
– Requiring the Defendants to respond to those alleged terms and to file any affidavit material on the preliminary issues.
– Listing the proceeding for a separate trial on:
– whether a binding dispute resolution agreement existed; and
– if so, whether it included a limitation confining the independent expert to the Stage 1 material available to the party-appointed valuers.

These directions ensured the Court could decide the dispute on a clear record, rather than on shifting characterisations of the correspondence.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

The hearing was a contest about how commercial parties bind themselves, and how a staged valuation mechanism should operate when the parties later disagree.

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

The evidentiary core was not a dramatic factual dispute about what happened. The key tension lay in what the parties’ actions meant in law.

The Court examined the sequence:
1. Stage 1 occurred, with each party appointing a valuer.
2. Both valuers used accounts as at 30 June 2010.
3. Stage 2 occurred, with the valuers meeting to resolve differences and identify unresolved issues.
4. The parties then attempted to implement Stage 3, but disagreed about the independent expert’s permitted material.

That sequence placed pressure on the Defendants’ uncertainty argument. If the agreement was too uncertain to bind, why did the parties carry it forward through Stage 2?

Core Evidence Confrontation

The decisive confrontation centred on two points:

1. The valuation date:

– The Court treated the shared adoption of 30 June 2010 as the valuation date as legally significant.
– The parties’ conduct in proceeding through Stage 2, knowing the valuations were prepared as at that date, was treated as acceptance of that date as part of the bargain.

1. The independent expert’s scope:

– The Plaintiff’s position invited the Court to add a boundary: the expert could only decide by reference to the same material as the Stage 1 valuers.
– The Defendants’ position was that the expert could seek additional material if needed, subject to relevance to valuation as at the agreed date.

Judicial Reasoning: How Facts Drove the Result

The Court resolved the valuation date issue through contract by conduct, with an alternative foundation in estoppel by representation. The Court then addressed implied terms by applying the necessity standard: a term is not implied merely because it seems fair or convenient; it must be necessary for the contract to work in a commercially coherent way.

The Court held that the valuation date was agreed by the parties’ conduct, because both valuers adopted 30 June 2010 and the parties progressed from Stage 1 to Stage 2 on that footing, making their conduct explicable only on the basis that they mutually approved that valuation date.

This statement was determinative because it converted an alleged gap into a concluded term. Once the valuation date was fixed, the most destabilising uncertainty argument fell away.

The Court then rejected the proposed implied term confining the independent expert to the Stage 1 material.

The Court determined that confining the independent expert to the material before the parties’ valuers was not necessary to give commercial efficacy to the agreement, because an independent expert may reasonably call for further source documents, ledgers, or journals to resolve disputes between valuations, provided the material remains relevant to valuation as at the agreed date.

This was determinative because it preserved the function of Stage 3: resolving issues, not freezing the expert into a potentially under-informed decision-maker.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Court answered the preliminary questions as follows:
– There was a binding dispute resolution agreement between the parties.
– There was no implied term confining the independent expert to the material available to the parties’ valuers at Stage 1.

The Court indicated it would make orders consistent with those answers, enabling the dispute resolution agreement to proceed, with the valuation to be determined as at 30 June 2010, but without the Plaintiff’s proposed restriction on the expert’s information base.

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis

Why this case matters beyond its facts

This judgment is a practical guide to two recurring commercial problems:
1. Parties often reach settlement deals through correspondence and then partially perform them before disputes re-emerge. Courts will look hard at conduct to determine whether essential terms have been adopted, even if the initial letters were not perfectly drafted.
2. Expert determination clauses are common in valuations, earn-outs, completion accounts, and buy-outs. Parties sometimes attempt to litigate new restrictions onto the expert’s task. This case shows the Court’s reluctance to imply constraints that are not necessary for the mechanism to operate.

The jurisprudential value lies in the Court’s disciplined separation of:
– what must be fixed for the bargain to work, and
– what can be left to the expert process without judicially inventing additional terms.

Judgment Points

Point 1: Contract terms can be completed by conduct when the conduct has only one reasonable explanation

The Court treated the parties’ movement from Stage 1 to Stage 2 as legally meaningful. If the parties proceed in a structured mechanism while accepting a shared assumption, the Court may treat that assumption as a term adopted by conduct.

Comparable authority for contract by conduct includes Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Company (1877) 2 App Cas 666, and Australian applications such as Empirnall Holdings Pty Ltd v Machon Paull Partners Pty Ltd (1988) 14 NSWLR 523, where conduct objectively manifests assent.

Point 2: Estoppel by representation can operate as a backstop when strict formation analysis is contested

The Court did not rely only on contract. It articulated an alternative: if the parties represented by their conduct that they were proceeding on a particular valuation date, and the other party relied on that representation by progressing the mechanism, the representing party may be estopped from denying the term.

This reasoning resonates with the Australian doctrine of promissory estoppel as developed in Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387, particularly where reliance and unconscionability are engaged by a party’s attempt to retreat from an assumption after the other has acted on it.

Point 3: The Court will not imply a term merely because it improves perceived fairness between valuers

The Plaintiff’s proposed implied term sounded attractive: keep the playing field level by limiting the independent expert to the same material as the Stage 1 valuers. The Court rejected that as insufficient. The test is not whether a term is desirable, but whether it is necessary to make the agreement work.

This aligns with the orthodox implied term principles expressed in BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266 and applied in Australian contexts: the term must be so obvious it goes without saying and be necessary for business efficacy.

Point 4: Expert determination is not inherently unfair if the expert can seek additional source material

A critical practical outcome is that the Court treated the possibility of the expert requesting more material as commercially normal, not suspect. In valuation disputes, surface-level summaries can conceal the true drivers of profits, expenses, and balance sheet positions. If the expert is tasked with resolving differences between two valuations, it may be rational to ask for underlying documentation to resolve accounting or maintainable earnings disputes.

This point matters for practitioners drafting expert clauses: if parties truly want a closed universe of documents, they should say so expressly. Courts may resist implying such a closure.

Point 5: Fixing the valuation date limits the universe of relevant evidence without needing an additional implied restriction

The Court effectively gave the Plaintiff a practical safeguard: even if the expert can ask for more material, the material must still be relevant to valuation as at the agreed date. That is a meaningful constraint. It prevents post-date trading performance or later events from distorting value, while still allowing the expert to validate or test the accounts and assumptions as at the valuation date.

Point 6: Uncertainty arguments weaken when parties have already performed the alleged contract structure

The Defendants argued essential terms were missing: valuation date, scope of matters for valuation, and who pays. The Court’s response to valuation date demonstrates a wider lesson: once parties have acted in a manner consistent with a concluded bargain, courts are less receptive to arguments that the bargain never existed, particularly where the conduct shows practical completion of the missing detail.

Point 7: The Court’s approach protects commercial dispute resolution mechanisms from being derailed by tactical re-characterisation

If one party can participate in a staged process through Stage 2 and then deny the bargain at Stage 3 by raising uncertainty or demanding new constraints, the entire purpose of the mechanism collapses. The Court’s reasoning supports commercial certainty by requiring parties to take responsibility for the objective meaning of what they did, not merely what they later wished they had written.

Point 8: The implied term threshold operates as a discipline on judicial intervention

The Court refused to rewrite the contract under the guise of implication. This judgment is a reminder that implication is exceptional and constrained. It protects party autonomy: parties choose the rules; courts enforce them; courts do not add new rules unless the contract cannot function without them.

Legal Basis

• Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 232–233:
  • Invoked as the statutory context for oppression relief and remedial buy-out orders, though the preliminary questions focused on the existence and terms of the dispute resolution agreement governing valuation.
• Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 198F(2):
  • Referenced in correspondence context regarding inspection of books and records, reflecting how access to financial records underpins valuation processes.
• Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) r 50:
  • Referred to as a procedural framework the parties contemplated for an independent expert or referee-style process.

Evidence Chain

1. Correspondence created an offer to buy out the Plaintiff’s interests at market valuation using a staged valuation regime.
2. The parties accepted the staged regime and appointed valuers.
3. Both valuers used financial information and accounts as at 30 June 2010.
4. The parties progressed to Stage 2, and the valuers met and identified unresolved issues.
5. The parties attempted to proceed to Stage 3 but disagreed about whether the expert could go beyond the Stage 1 material.
6. The Plaintiff commenced proceedings seeking enforcement and specific performance of the dispute resolution agreement.
7. The Court determined:
   • the valuation date was fixed at 30 June 2010 by conduct or estoppel; and
   • the implied term restricting the expert’s material base was not necessary for commercial efficacy.

Judicial Original Quotation

The Court held that the parties’ conduct in progressing from Stage 1 to Stage 2, knowing both valuations used 30 June 2010, was explicable only on the assumption that the parties mutually approved that valuation date, such that the term was adopted by contract constituted by conduct, or alternatively established by estoppel.

This was determinative because it defeated the most potent uncertainty argument and anchored the valuation task to a fixed temporal point.

The Court determined that there was no need to confine the independent expert to the material before the parties’ valuers, because an expert resolving valuation differences may reasonably call for further source material to decide the issues, provided the evidence remains relevant to valuation as at the agreed date.

This was determinative because it preserved the functionality of the Stage 3 mechanism and prevented the Court from implying a restriction not required for the agreement to work.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

The losing position was the attempt to add a closed-material restriction through implication.

It failed for layered reasons:
1. The proposed implied term was not necessary for the staged mechanism to function. The mechanism could work without it: the expert could resolve disputes using the existing material, and could also request additional relevant material if needed.
2. The valuation date constraint already performed much of the protective work the proposed implied term was meant to achieve. Once the valuation date was fixed, irrelevant post-date matters could not legitimately be used to inflate or depress value.
3. The implied term would have transformed the expert’s task from resolving issues to operating within an artificial evidentiary quarantine. The Court treated that as an unnecessary and commercially unrealistic constraint for valuation disputes.

Implications

Implication 1: If you act like you have a deal, the Court may hold you to it

Commercial disputes often turn on what parties did, not what they later claim they meant. Progressing a staged process, giving instructions, exchanging valuations, and moving to the next stage can speak louder than the absence of perfect drafting.

Implication 2: If you want a closed universe of documents for an expert determination, say so clearly at the start

Courts are reluctant to imply a document restriction on an independent expert. If your commercial risk profile demands a sealed evidentiary record, it should be expressly written into the expert determination clause.

Implication 3: Fixing the valuation date is one of the strongest safeguards you can build into a buy-out mechanism

A clear valuation date limits the relevance of later events without needing to micromanage the expert’s method. It can reduce disputes about hindsight and stop the valuation from drifting into a debate about later trading outcomes.

Implication 4: A dispute resolution mechanism can fail at the final step unless the expert’s remit is defined with precision

Parties often define the stages but neglect the details of the final expert step, such as permissible sources, procedural fairness, timelines, and how issues are framed. That omission can create a new dispute that defeats the mechanism’s purpose.

Implication 5: Litigation discipline comes from evidence chains, not indignation

This case shows that persuasion is built from a clean evidentiary sequence: correspondence, performance, reliance, and the objective meaning of conduct. A party who can present that chain clearly is better positioned to secure enforceable outcomes.

Q&A Session

Q1: If the correspondence did not expressly state the valuation date, how did the Court fix it at 30 June 2010?

The Court determined that both parties adopted 30 June 2010 in practice because both valuers used accounts as at that date, and the parties progressed into Stage 2 on that footing. The objective meaning of their conduct was that they accepted that date as the valuation date, or they were estopped from denying it after the other party relied on it.

Q2: Does allowing the independent expert to request more material mean the expert can use post-date information to change the value?

No. The Court’s reasoning confines the valuation to the agreed date. The expert may seek further material, but it must remain relevant to valuation as at 30 June 2010. Additional material can test, verify, or explain the accounts and assumptions as at that date, rather than importing later performance as a value driver.

Q3: What is the practical drafting lesson for buy-out clauses using expert determination?

If parties want the expert to be limited to a specified set of documents, that limitation should be stated expressly. If parties want the expert to be able to compel source documents, that should also be stated, alongside procedural protections such as timetables, issue lists, confidentiality, and how competing assumptions are to be resolved.

---

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype

Commercial buy-out dispute with a staged valuation mechanism using expert determination: Business interest buy-out under a correspondence-based settlement with a valuation clause.

Judgment Nature Definition

Interlocutory-style determination of preliminary questions within a proceeding: the Court answered binding agreement and implied term questions to enable the valuation mechanism to proceed.

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

④ Commercial Law and Corporate Law

Core Test: Contract Formation

Are the four essential elements present: Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, and Intention to create legal relations?

• Offer:
  • Is there a clear promise to do something defined, such as purchasing an interest at market valuation?
  • Is there a defined mechanism for how the key variable will be determined, such as a staged valuation process?
• Acceptance:
  • Is acceptance communicated in correspondence, or objectively manifested by conduct?
  • Has either party proceeded to perform the staged mechanism, such as appointing valuers, exchanging valuations, and attending Stage 2 meetings?
• Consideration:
  • Is there an exchange of promises, such as the promise to purchase interests in return for the promise to transfer them and discontinue threatened proceedings?
  • Does performance occur, such as the expenditure incurred for valuations, which can support an inference of reciprocal obligations?
• Intention to create legal relations:
  • Is the arrangement commercial and designed to avoid litigation costs?
  • Are there objective indicators that the parties expected to be bound, including references to costs consequences and inspection rights?

Practical caution:
– Contracts formed through correspondence may still be binding even if not every detail is written in one document, but the risk of dispute increases if the expert’s remit, valuation date, and key procedural steps are not expressly stated.

Core Test: Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law

Has the person, in trade or commerce, engaged in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive?

• Identify conduct:
  • Was there a representation about a party’s interest, valuation basis, or access to records?
• Materiality:
  • Did the representation have practical significance for the valuation or buy-out decision?
• Reliance and causation:
  • Did the other party act on the representation, such as commissioning a valuation or abandoning a threatened proceeding?
• Remedies:
  • Remedies may include damages or injunctions, but outcomes tend to be fact-sensitive and depend on evidence of reliance and loss.

Practical caution:
– Section 18 claims tend to be determined by the overall impression created, and litigation risk can be relatively high where communications are informal or incomplete.

Core Test: Unconscionable Conduct

Did one party take advantage of a special disadvantage of another to such an extent that the transaction is against good conscience?

• Special disadvantage:
  • Language barrier, lack of understanding, acute financial distress, or vulnerability that affects the ability to protect one’s interests.
• Knowledge:
  • Did the other party know or ought reasonably to have known of that disadvantage?
• Exploitation:
  • Was there a sharp practice in leveraging the disadvantage to secure a bargain or control the valuation process?
• Relief:
  • Relief depends on evidence and may include setting aside or varying transactions, but outcomes tend to be determined on the full factual matrix.

Practical caution:
– In sophisticated commercial contexts, unconscionability arguments can be difficult unless the evidence of special disadvantage and exploitation is strong.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

Promissory Estoppel

Did the other party make a clear and unequivocal promise or representation?

• Clarity of representation:
  • For example, a promise to purchase an interest at market valuation using a specified staged process.
• Reliance:
  • Did you commission valuations, provide access to records, participate in Stage 2 meetings, or refrain from issuing proceedings in reliance on the promise?
• Detriment:
  • Cost of valuations, opportunity cost, and strategic disadvantage from delaying litigation.
• Unconscionability:
  • Would it be against conscience for the promisor to resile after inducing reliance?

Result reference:
– Equity may estop the other party from retreating from the represented basis of dealing, especially where the other party has relied and would suffer detriment if the promise were withdrawn.

Proprietary Estoppel

Did the other party make a representation about an interest in property or an asset?

• This pathway is more relevant where the disputed interest concerns proprietary entitlements, and may be less directly applicable where the dispute is purely about price-setting for a commercial buy-out, but could arise where trust or unit trust interests are involved and representations concern beneficial ownership.

Unjust Enrichment and Constructive Trust

Has the other party received a benefit at your expense, and is it against conscience for them to retain it without payment?

• Benefit:
  • Value extracted from your contribution, such as labour, funds, or assumption of liabilities benefiting the business or trust assets.
• Expense:
  • Demonstrable costs or contributions traceable to the benefit.
• Unjust factor:
  • Failure of basis, mistake, or unconscionability.
• Remedy:
  • Restitutionary relief or a declaration of beneficial interest through a constructive trust may be available in some circumstances, but the risk profile depends heavily on proof and tracing.

Practical caution:
– These equitable pathways tend to be evidence-intensive and can carry relatively high litigation cost risk compared with enforcing a clearly drafted valuation mechanism.

Procedural Fairness as a Commercial Analog

Although procedural fairness is classically administrative, commercial expert determination clauses often benefit from procedural guardrails:
– Issue lists, timetable, right to make submissions, and disclosure protocols.
– These mechanisms reduce later disputes about ambush or incomplete information.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds

• Limitation periods:
  • Claims in contract and equity are subject to statutory limitation regimes. The specific period depends on the cause of action and jurisdiction, and parties should treat limitation risk as real, particularly where settlement discussions delay filing.
• Jurisdiction and enforceability:
  • The Court must have jurisdiction, and an alleged agreement must be sufficiently certain and complete to be enforceable.
• Expert determination mechanics:
  • If the clause requires agreement on the expert identity within a fixed period, a deadlock mechanism is critical to prevent the process from stalling.

Exceptional Channels

• Contract by conduct:
  • Even where drafting is incomplete, subsequent performance can supply missing operational detail if the conduct objectively shows agreement.
• Estoppel:
  • Where one party induces the other to proceed on an assumption and then attempts to retreat, estoppel may prevent denial of that assumption.

Suggestion:
– Do not abandon a potentially enforceable expert determination mechanism simply because the correspondence was imperfect. Carefully examine whether the parties’ conduct has effectively fixed the missing operational details, because that can be decisive.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle

It is recommended to cite this case in legal submissions or debates involving:
– Whether a valuation date can be fixed by conduct or estoppel when correspondence is incomplete.
– Whether an implied term can be used to confine an independent expert to a closed set of valuation materials.
– How courts approach the enforceability of staged expert determination mechanisms in commercial buy-outs.

Citation Method

• As positive support:
  • When your matter involves staged valuation and the opposing party raises uncertainty arguments after partially performing the mechanism, citing Re Venture Capital Group Pty Ltd [2012] VSC 654 can strengthen the argument that conduct may establish essential terms and preserve enforceability.
• As a distinguishing reference:
  • If the opposing party cites this authority, you should emphasise the uniqueness of your matter, such as:
  • no shared valuation date adopted by both valuers;
  • no progression through stages consistent with mutual assent;
  • express drafting that limits the expert’s material base, or conversely expressly permits expansive inquiry.

Anonymisation Rule

When paraphrasing the factual narrative, use procedural titles such as Plaintiff and Defendants. Retain case names and citations only where necessary for legal identification and authority.

---

Conclusion

This judgment demonstrates a disciplined commercial principle: when parties build a workable valuation mechanism and then act on it, the Court may treat their conduct as the glue that fixes essential terms, while refusing to imply additional restrictions that are not necessary for the mechanism to function.

Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Re Venture Capital Group Pty Ltd [2012] VSC 654), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.