Blue Chip investor appeals thrown out by court

Blue Chip founder Mark Bryers. Photo / Doug Sherring

The Court of Appeal has dismissed significant litigation brought by a big group of Blue Chip investors who bought into three multi-million dollar apartment complexes.

The investors, mainly retirees, unsuccessfully fought to have a High Court decision overturned on sale and purchase agreements they entered into for inner-city high-rise blocks the Barclay, Bianco and Icon.

Read the full decision here.

Greenstone Barclay Trustees developed the Barclay, Turn and Wave was responsible for the Bianco and Icon Central undertook the Icon.

A substantial number of selected investors bought a test case seeking declarations they were entitled to cancel, but the High Court found the investors were not entitled to do so.

Five investors were then selected as test cases for appeals, seeking to bring in the Court of Appeal three new arguments that had not been raised in the High Court.

Dozens of appellants were involved in the action trying to stop their "off the plan" deals proceeding but the court dismissed their pleas.

The Court of Appeal said it had decided the investors should not be permitted to amend their case and advance those arguments.

It found that would have caused serious prejudice to the developers since they had not had the opportunity to counter them with evidence in the High Court.

Paul Dale and Daniel Grove represented the investors and Dale said when the decision was issued that he was "obviously disappointed" but that it was too early to say if he would go to the Supreme Court for the stung retirees.

"We would have to apply to take that and it's too soon to comment," Dale said.

The Court of Appeal said it was, in any event, not satisfied any of the proposed new arguments had any realistic prospect of success.

It had decided the investment agreements entered into between Blue Chip companies and the investors were not subject to the Securities Act.

Blue Chip had not breached requirements of the Securities Act under which a registered prospectus or authorised advertisement needed to be available for investors in cases where the Act applied, the Court of Appeal said.

It held that even if Blue Chip had breached the Securities Act, the separate purchase agreements between the investors and the developers were not affected.

A formal decision in relation to other investors beyond the five selected as test cases had been reserved, with the issue of court costs reserved for further consideration, the Court of Appeal said.