The developers of a high density retirement property in Queensland will get their day in court to argue that receivers appointed by Westpac in 2014 over a A$21 million loan sold the units at prices that were a deep and indefensible discount of their market value.The developer, Zilzie Pty Ltd (now in liquidation) and three of its directors will be allowed to press a defence that "alleges a set-off or defend the plaintiff's claim by alleging that the first defendant has or all the defendants have a claim for damages, or compensation, or an account for the receivers' breaches of duty in selling the first defendant's property at an undervalue."Westpac appointed Robert Hutson from KordaMentha as receiver in early 2014 to recover a A$21 million loan, a loan described as being around the same value as the property held in security. A counterclaim by the defendants against Westpac "details several instances of the receivers causing lots to be sold at an undervalue," Justice David Jackson related in a judgment of the Supreme Court of Queensland on Friday."For example, in September 2014, the receivers caused various lots to be sold to a single purchaser for total price of $2,800,000, an average of $86.30 per square metre," Jackson wrote."In 2015, the purchaser on-sold only some of the lots (excluding lots with premium ocean views) for a substantially higher return of $2,964,500, an average of $164,547 per square metre."The receivers sold particular lots as 'multi-sales' rather than individual sales and as a consequence obtained amounts up to 80 per cent less than the purchaser was able to on-sell those lots" while in another instance "sold property referred to as the Recreation Club for 90 per cent less than its market value."Justice Jackson summarised the legal case against Westpac as "the defendants therefore allege that the receivers, acting as agents of the plaintiff, breached  the Property Law Act or contravened the Corporations Act, with the plaintiff liable as principal for the breach and the loss and damage suffered."The defendants further contend that Westpac "engaged in conduct in relation to the provision of financial services which is, in all the circumstances, unconscionable within the meaning of the ASIC Act."Justice Jackson rejected a claim for summary judgment by Westpac, ruling "the defendants should have the opportunity to plead any loss or damage."