Access Australasia Pty Ltd v Griffiths

Link copied
Case Copied 16 min read

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Access Australasia Pty Ltd v Griffiths [2004] QDC 368
PARTIES:

ACCESS AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD
T/A LOCATIONS REALTY

Appellant

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 68

COUNSEL:

Mr N Thompson – appellant  

Mr R Lawson -  respondent

SOLICITORS:

Grays – appellant  

Porter Davies – respondent

  1. This is an appeal against an order of a Magistrate granting summary judgment on a claim for damages for breach of contract. 

  1. 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…

CaseChat AU logo

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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2004] QDC 368
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Access Australasia Pty Ltd sought summary judgment against Griffiths, who defended the claim. The matter was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales where the Magistrate granted the application for summary judgment, dismissing Griffiths' defence. Griffiths appealed the decision, arguing that the Magistrate erred in finding that he had no defence by way of set-off, that there was no need for a trial of the proceeding, and that his claim for set-off was speculative.

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

The application for summary judgment was brought pursuant to r 292 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules which provides:“[r 292] Summary judgment for plaintiff 292(1) A plaintiff may, at any time after a defendant files a notice of intention to defend, apply to the court under this part for judgment against the defendant. (2) If the court is satisfied that - (a) the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending all or a part of the plaintiff’s claim; and(b) there is no need for a trial of the claim or the part of the claim;the court may give judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for all or the part of the plaintiff’s claim and may make any other order the court considers appropriate.” In her reasons for judgment the Magistrate traversed the submissions made on behalf of both parties and concluded, in allowing the application for summary judgment, that:“I think in the end, I accept the plaintiff’s submission that even if the defendant does show prospects of successfully establishing the counterclaim that the Court is not prevented from making an order for judgment pursuant to Rule 292 and I accept the submission that should the defendant wish to maintain its claim against the plaintiff, the counterclaim can proceed separately, and, in the circumstances, it should not interfere with the plaintiff being granted judgment.” A notice of appeal was filed on 11 November 2003 whereby the appellant (the defendant in the court below) seeks to appeal from the order of the Magistrate on the grounds that the Magistrate erred in finding that:(1)the appellant had no defence by way of set-off to the respondent’s claim;(2)there was no need for a trial of the proceeding;(3)the appellant’s claim for set-off depended “upon suspicion” and there was little or an insufficient basis upon which to make the inferences upon which the appellant relied.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.