MATEO BUTOROVIC No Attendance v ARGENT PROPERTY HOLDING PTY LTD In Person [2026] SASC 47

On Appeal from SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (THE HONOURABLE AUXILIARY ASSOCIATE JUSTICE COSTELLO) CIV-25-010698 Appellant: MATEO BUTOROVIC No Attendance Respondent: ARGENT PROPERTY HOLDING PTY LTD In Person Counsel: MT T LOVEJOY - Solicitor: LOVEJOY LEGAL Hearing Date/s: 20/02/2026, 25/03/2026 File No/s: CIV-25-013528 B SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Appeal to a Single Judge) DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court in which it was generated. BUTOROVIC v ARGENT PROPERTY HOLDING PTY LTD [2026] SASC 47 Judgment of the Honourable Justice Gray (ex tempore) 25 March 2026 APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - WHEN APPEAL LIES - FROM SUPREME COURT - BY LEAVE OF COURT REAL PROPERTY - TORRENS TITLE - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS GENERALLY - PROCEEDINGS FOR POSSESSION OR RECOVERY OF LAND This matter concerns an appeal against an order for vacant possession. The order was made on application of the respondent and proprietor of the property, Argent Property Holding Pty Ltd. The property, formerly owned by Accumulus IT Pty Ltd, was sold to the respondent on 27 August 2025 following the failure of a proposed sale to One Light Investments Pty Ltd. To facilitate One Light obtaining finance, the property was required to be tenanted. Accordingly, Accumulus permitted the applicant to enter and modify the premises to operate a motor mechanic business, including removing a mezzanine floor and undertaking other works. The applicant claims to have expended approximately $100,000 on those works. The applicant contended that additional time to vacate the premises was required and that the respondent’s application before Auxiliary Associate Justice Costello constituted an abuse of process. Two central matters are advanced: First, that the Auxiliary Associate Justice failed to understand the relationship between the previous owner and new owner of the property, there was deceit against the applicant, and that the respondent’s actions other constituted unconscionable conduct; and second, that the applicant paid monies towards rental and improvements and by reason of the improvements made he acquired an equitable interest in the building. Held, refusing leave to appeal and dismissing the appeal: (1) There are no factual matters identified in the evidential material which establishes that it would be unconscionable for Accumulus or the respondent not to offer the applicant a lease. -- 1 of 8 -- (2) No matters were identified which evidence deceit or unconscionable conduct which would give rise to a right to continue to occupy the premises. There was no evidence of rental payments by the applicant for occupation of the premises. (3) Even if Accumulus was aware of negotiations whereby the applicant expended monies to improve the premises on the basis that he would become a tenant of One Light, such knowledge does not operate to burden Accumulus’ title. (4) The applicant has not established how the payment of those monies gave rise to an equitable interest in the property which permits him to remain in occupation. Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) s 50(1)(b), referred to. -- 2 of 8 -- BUTOROVIC v ARGENT PROPERTY HOLDING PTY LTD [2026] SASC 47 Civil: Single Judge Appeal 1 GRAY J (ex tempore): This matter concerns an appeal against an order for vacant possession.1 The order for vacant possession was made against the applicant, Mateo Butorovic, on application of the respondent, Argent Property Holding Pty Ltd (‘Argent’). The respondent is the registered proprietor of the premises located at 5 Newfield Road, Para Hills West (‘the property’).2 The applicant also appeals against an order for costs made against him. 2 The applicant sought an extension of time of some six weeks by which the property had to be vacated or, in the alternative, a stay of the order of the Auxiliary Associate Justice until determination of the appeal.3 Chief Justice Kourakis, as an indulgence, stayed the orders of the Auxiliary Associate Justice for a further three days but otherwise dismissed the interlocutory application.4 3 The applicant contends that more time is required to vacate the premises and that the application brought by the respondent before the Auxiliary Associate Justice constituted an abuse of process.5 There are two central matters advanced. Firstly, that the Auxiliary Associate Justice failed to understand the relationship between the previous owner of the property and the new owner. The applicant contends that family and friends transferred the property to the disadvantage of the applicant without his knowledge and without payment being made to him. The applicant alleges there was deceit against the applicant and that the respondent’s actions constituted unconscionable conduct.6 Secondly, the applicant contends that he paid monies towards rental and other costs, including over $100,000 in relation to improving the value of the property. The applicant alleges that by reason of the improvements made he acquired an equitable interest in the building.7 4 The respondent contends that the grounds raised by Mr Butorovic are devoid of merit and rest on bare assertions unsupported by evidence. The grounds are said, even at their highest, not to raise any triable issue capable of binding the respondent as registered proprietor. 1 Argent Property Holding v Butorovic (Supreme Court of South Australia, Costello AAsJ, 21 October 2025) (‘Reasons of Costello AAsJ’). 2 Being the land comprised in Certificate of Title Register Book Volume 5243 Folio 776. 3 Matteo Simon Butorovic, ‘Interlocutory Application’, Submission in Butorovic v Argent Property Holding, CIV-25-013528, 1 December 2025 (FDN 4); Matteo Simon Butorovic, ‘Interlocutory Application (Revision 1)’, Submission in Butorovic v Argent Property Holding, CIV-25-013528, 3 December 2025 (FDN 7). 4 Butorovic v Argent Property Holding (Supreme Court of South Australia, Kourakis CJ, 3 December 2025) (‘Reasons of Kourakis CJ’). 5 Matteo Simon Butorovic, ‘Notice of Appeal and Appeal Grounds’, Submission in Butorovic v Argent Property Holding, CIV-25-013528, 11 November 2025 (FDN 1) (‘Notice of Appeal’). 6 Ibid, Grounds 1-3. 7 Ibid, Grounds 4-5. -- 3 of 8 -- [2026] SASC 47 Gray J 2 5 The Auxiliary Associate Justice made an order that the applicant give vacant possession of the property on the basis that the applicant had not raised a triable issue, as none of the matters put forward by the applicant gave rise to a right to possession in the property.8 Chief Justice Kourakis found that the grounds of appeal prepared by the applicant had “no reasonable prospects of success.”9 Background and issues in dispute 6 The property was previously owned by Accumulus IT Pty Ltd (‘Accumulus’) and was sold to Argent on 27 August 2025. Accumulus was to enter into a contract of sale with another entity, One Light Investments Pty Ltd (‘One Light’), prior to sale to Argent. In order to obtain finance for the sale of the proposed purchase, One Light required the property to be tenanted. In order to facilitate One Light obtaining finance, Accumulus gave Mr Butorovic permission to enter the property, to clean it up and to make alterations to the premises so that he could commence to operate his business on the property as a motor mechanic. There was a mezzanine floor in the premises that Mr Butorovic removed to allow sufficient height to lift trucks up and work under them. Mr Butorovic claims that he also personally did work removing display lights at the property and also engaged workers to carry out some of those works. Mr Butorovic claims that he spent something in excess of $100,000 on that work.10 That claim is not admitted by Argent. 7 The contract for sale to One Light failed in March 2025 and Accumulus sold the property to Argent on 27 August 2025.11 8 Throughout the period of Accumulus’ ownership of the property, Argent alleges that no rent was paid by the applicant. The same is alleged for the period commencing from when the respondent took ownership of the property. Negotiations with the applicant by Accumulus commenced in January 2025 and did not resolve.12 The applicant was notified by Accumulus of its intention to commence proceedings for vacant possession by email dated 4 June 2025.13 A final notice was sent to the applicant on 28 July 2025.14 The applicant replied on 30 July 2025 indicating that the matter required determination by a court.15 As I have stated, proceedings were filed by the respondent in September 2025, having purchased the property from Accumulus on 27 August 2025. 8 Reasons of Costello AAsJ (n 1) 2. 9 Reasons of Kourakis CJ (n 4) 4. 10 Transcript of Proceedings, Butorovic v Argent Property Holding Pty Ltd (Supreme Court of South Australia, Kourakis CJ, 3 December 2025) 17.9. 11 Argent Property Holding, ‘Affidavit of Anantha Krishnan Gangapatnam’, Submission in Argent Property Holding v Butorovic, CIV-25-010698, 10 September 2025, 2, [3]-[8] (‘Gangapatnam Affidavit’). 12 Gangapatnam Affidavit (n 11) 2, [9]-[11] (Exhibit AKG1). 13 Gangapatnam Affidavit (n 11) 8-10 (Exhibit AKG2). 14 Gangapatnam Affidavit (n 11) 11-13 (Exhibit AKG3). 15 Ibid. -- 4 of 8 -- [2026] SASC 47 Gray J 3 9 The property is subject to a mortgage in favour of the Westpac Banking Corporation, and Argent brought the application to meet its obligations pursuant to that mortgage agreement by obtaining rental income from the applicant’s tenancy or occupation.16 10 Before Costello AAsJ, the applicant argued that the respondent was estopped from asserting a right of possession over the property. The argument is summarised by his Honour as follows:17 In summary, he submits that the applicant is estopped from asserting a right to possession by reason of the fact that a previous owner permitted the respondent to move into possession and that thereafter with the consent of the previous owner, Accumulus IT Pty Ltd (“Accumulus”) the respondent was encouraged to carry out renovation works on the property to bring it into a condition which enabled him to operate a workshop from part of the property. Even if I accept the history of the respondent’s entry into occupation advanced by the respondent, two obstacles lie in the face of such an arrangement giving rise to a right to occupy. First, although any such arrangement might give rise to an entitlement to make a claim for damages, it is difficult to see how it could give the respondent some form of equitable right to possession. Secondly, any such arrangement would only give the respondent rights against Accumulus, but not the applicant. 11 The applicant also alleged that he was assigned rights under the contract between Accumulus and One Light. His Honour found those matters did not resolve the applicant’s claim to be entitled to remain in possession. His Honour held:18 …The evidence before me appears to indicate that, at the very best for the respondent, One Light regarded Accumulus as having breached the contract and that it agreed, as long ago as March 2025, that the contract was terminated. In any event, even if there was a contract that was still on foot and properly assigned to the respondent, I fail to see how that avails the respondent's claims to be entitled to remain in possession. At best, again it might give the respondent a right to claim damages but again only against Accumulus. 12 Mr Butorovic’s case before Costello AAsJ and Kourakis CJ concerned inter alia time sought to vacate the property. Costello AAsJ appreciated that the applicant would encounter difficulty in ceasing operations of a business which had remained at the property for over a year and afforded the applicant additional time notwithstanding the urgency of the application brought by the respondent for vacant possession. His Honour said:19 …Clearly, Mr Scragg, I am not going to be ordering that the applicant not have vacant possession for another three months. Equally, it might be difficult, Mr Belperio, to reasonably assume that a facility which has currently been operating there for nearly a year should cease to operate and vacate in a matter of days. I am just not sure that - so, I am thinking perhaps by 1st of December. 16 Argent Property Holding, ‘Affidavit of Thomas Henry Lovejoy’, Submission in Argent Property Holding v Butorovic, CIV-25-010698, 10 September 2025, 2, [8]-[9]. 17 Reasons of Costello AAsJ (n 1) 1; Notice of Appeal (n 5) 7. 18 Reasons of Costello AAsJ (n 1) 2; Notice of Appeal (n 5) 8. 19 Reasons of Costello AAsJ (n 1) 2; Notice of Appeal (n 5) 8. -- 5 of 8 -- [2026] SASC 47 Gray J 4 13 Mr Butorovic was granted an indulgence to stay at the property until 6 December 2025.20 This matter was listed for hearing before me on 20 February 2026. The applicant sought an adjournment to obtain legal advice.21 The adjournment was granted.22 An indication was given on that occasion that no further adjournment would be likely to be granted.23 14 When the matter was called on today the applicant did not appear and I found non-attendance proved. I considered it in the interests of justice, notwithstanding the non-attendance, to proceed to determine the matter on its merits. Consideration 15 Leave is required in respect of an appeal concerning an order for vacant possession.24 16 The primary considerations for this Court on the question of leave, and the issues which I must consider on this application, concern inter alia the substantive merits of the appeal, whether the decision sought to be impugned is attended by sufficient doubt to warrant appellate intervention, and whether substantial injustice would be done by leaving the decision unreserved. 17 Mr Butorovic’s case as advanced on the papers before me today is similar to the case advanced before Kourakis CJ. 18 Essentially, Mr Butorovic contends that in early February 2025 Accumulus, through its representative Dr Godvindasamy, offered Mr Butorovic a lease but on rental terms which required a rent of $200,000 for one year to be paid in advance. Mr Butorovic’s case is that he did not enter into that lease and rejected those terms for reasons that he explained in the materials and previous hearings. 19 On 11 February 2025, Mr Butorovic contends he was again offered a different lease, this time at an annual rental of $93,600 but again payable one year in advance. That lease too was rejected.25 20 On the case of the respondent, there could not have been a lease which burdened the property and its registered proprietor. Rather, there was at most a licence. 20 Order of Kourakis CJ in Butorovic v Argent Property Holding (Supreme Court of South Australia, CIV- 25-013528, 03 December 2026). 21 Matteo Simon Butorovic, ‘Interlocutory Application’, Submission in Butorovic v Argent Property Holding, CIV-25-013528, 15 December 2025 (FDN 15). 22 Order of Gray J in Butorovic v Argent Property Holding (Supreme Court of South Australia, CIV-25- 013528, 20 February 2026). 23 Ibid. 24 Uniform Civil Rules 2022 (SA) rr 212.2(1)(a), 241.1; Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) s 50(1)(b). 25 Argent Property Holding, ‘Written Submissions of the Respondent’, Submission in Butorovic v Argent Property Holding, CIV-25-013528, 13 February 2026, 3 [6]. -- 6 of 8 -- [2026] SASC 47 Gray J 5 21 On Mr Butorovic’s case there was no lease because the terms offered by Accumulus through Dr Godvindasamy were rejected by him. I find that there are no factual matters identified in the evidential material which establishes that it would be unconscionable for Accumulus or Argent not to offer Mr Butorovic a lease. There was no promise or conduct on the part of Accumulus or Argent which indicated that a lease would be offered. 22 As Kourakis CJ found, the evidence, at most, indicates a strong case that Mr Butorovic occupied the property in February 2025 pursuant to a licence. The evidence indicates that that licence was either terminable at will or terminable on the failure of the lease negotiations, or on the failure of the contract of sale of the property from Accumulus to One Light. Whilst the terms of the licence may have required a reasonable notice period, such notice was clearly given.26 23 It follows that the grounds of appeal alleging error on behalf of the Auxiliary Associate Justice on the basis of unconscionable conduct do not have merit. There are no matters identified by Mr Butorovic which evidence deceit or unconscionable conduct which would give rise to a right to continue to occupy the premises. 24 It follows that Grounds 1- 4 of the appeal are without merit. 25 There is no evidence of rental payments by Mr Butorovic for occupation of the premises. Rather, Mr Butorovic, on his case, paid monies to improve the premises on the basis that he would become a tenant of One Light. 26 Mr Butorovic’s claim, that he spent in excess of $100,000 on works to the property on the understanding that he would become a tenant of One Light when One Light purchased the property,27 is not accepted by the respondent. 27 Even if Accumulus was aware of those negotiations, I consider the evidence does not suggest that it is reasonably arguable that because Accumulus was aware of the negotiations between One Light and Mr Butorovic, that such notice would in some way burden Accumulus’ title. 28 In other words, Mr Butorovic has not established how the payment of those monies gave rise to an equitable interest in the property which permits him to remain in occupation. If follows that Ground 5 of the appeal is without merit. Conclusion and orders 29 I would not grant permission to appeal as appellable error has not been identified in the decision of the learned Auxiliary Associate Justice.28 26 Reasons of Kourakis CJ (n 4) 2-3; Gangapatnam Affidavit (n 11) 5-6 (Exhibit AKG1). 27 Transcript of Proceedings, Butorovic v Argent Property Holding Pty Ltd (Supreme Court of South Australia, Kourakis CJ, 3 December 2025) 17.9. 28 Reasons of Costello AAsJ (n 1). -- 7 of 8 -- [2026] SASC 47 Gray J 6 30 The grounds of appeal are without merit. There is no substantial injustice in leaving the decision unreserved. There is also no merit in Mr Butorovic’s complaint concerning the order for costs made by the learned Auxiliary Associate Justice. 31 Accordingly, the orders of the Court are: 1. Leave to appeal is refused. 2. The application to appeal is dismissed. 32 I will hear the parties as to any other orders. -- 8 of 8 --