DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Access Australasia Pty Ltd v Griffiths [2004] QDC 368 PARTIES: ACCESS AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD
T/A LOCATIONS REALTYAppellant
and
GAYLIA JOY GRIFFITHS
Respondent
FILE NO: 90/03 PROCEEDING: Appeal ORIGINATING COURT: Magistrates Court Southport
DELIVERED ON: 11 June 2004 DELIVERED AT: Southport HEARING DATE: 2 June 2004 JUDGE: Newton DCJ ORDER: Appeal dismissed CATCHWORDS: APPEAL FROM ORDER OF MAGISTRATE GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT – Rule 292 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
Equity – whether equitable set-off operates to impeach respondent’s title
Cases cited:
CSR Investments Pty Limited v Alcan Northern Territory Alumina Pty Limited [2003] NSW SC 1137
D Galambos & Son Pty Ltd v McIntyre 5ACTR 10
Gibb Australia Pty Limited v Cremor Pty Limited No. SC 143 of 1991, No. SCA 68 of 1991, (1992) 108 FLR 129; [1992] ACTSC 68COUNSEL: Mr N Thompson – appellant
Mr R Lawson - respondent
SOLICITORS: Grays – appellant
Porter Davies – respondent
This is an appeal against an order of a Magistrate granting summary judgment on a claim for damages for breach of contract.
The respondent (who was the plaintiff in the court below) claimed the sum of $13,076.25 as being her share of commissions earned while she was employed as a sales consultant in the appellant’s real estate agency at the Gold Coast. The statement of claim, which was filed on 11 August 2003, identified three separate and distinct sales secured by the respondent in respect of which it was alleged that the appellant, her employer, had paid none or part only of the commission fee to the respondent:
“The Sanctuary Pines Commission
4.In or about November 2002, the Plaintiff secured the sale of Unit 24, Sanctuary Pines, Santa Barbara Road, Hope Island in the State of Queensland, for consideration of $222,000.00 (‘the Unit 24 Sale’).
5.The total commission payable to the Defendant in respect of the Unit 24 Sale was $6,600.00 (including GST) of which $3,300.00 (including GST) was payable to the Plaintiff as a commission fee pursuant to the contract (‘the Unit 24 Commission Fee’).
6.On 21 January 2003, the Plaintiff delivered invoice no. 38 in the amount of $3,300.00 (including GST) to the Defendant in respect of the Lot 24 Commission Fee.
7.Settlement of the sale of Unit 24 took place on 17 January 2003.
8.On 7 February 2003, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff the sum of $2,750.00 in partial reduction of monies owed to the Plaintiff in respect of the Unit 24 Commission Fee.
The Gracemere Island Commission
9.In or about September 2002, the Plaintiff secured the sale of Lot 11 Gracemere Island, Hope Island, in the State of Queensland, for consideration of $375,00.00 (‘the Lot 11 Sale’).
10.The total commission payable to the Defendant in respect of the Lot 11 sale was $10,807.50 (including GST) of which $5,403.75 (including GST) was payable to the Plaintiff as a commission fee pursuant to the contract (‘the Lot 11 Commission Fee’).
11.On 3 April 2003, the Plaintiff delivered invoice no. 43 in…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Access Australasia Pty Ltd v Griffiths and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2004] QDC 368
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether the equitable set-off could operate to impeach the respondent's title, whether there was a need for a trial of the claim, and whether the claim for set-off was sufficiently substantiated. The court found that the Magistrate's decision was correct, as the appellant's defence by way of set-off did not provide a real prospect of successfully defending the claim. The court also found that the appellant's claim for set-off was speculative, and that there was no need for a trial of the proceeding.
The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Magistrate's decision to grant summary judgment to Access Australasia Pty Ltd. The court held that the appellant had no defence by way of set-off to the respondent's claim, and that there was no need for a trial of the proceeding. The court also found that the appellant's claim for set-off was speculative and not sufficiently substantiated. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the order of the Magistrate was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.