ADVANCED REALTORS PTY LTD -v- PRADA CORP DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD [2015] WADC 52

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WADC 52
Case No:	CIV:1780/2011	Heard:	23 - 25 FEBRUARY 2015
Coram:	STAUDE DCJ	Delivered:	8/05/15
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	29	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Judgment for the plaintiff
PDF Version

Parties:	ADVANCED REALTORS PTY LTD PRADA CORP DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD MONT APPLECROSS PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Contract Authority to auction Claim for agent's commission Whether seller liable to pay commission Whether seller sought to avoid liability by deferring contract of sale of land Whether land sold during exclusive rights period Whether seller introduced buyers Whether plaintiff entitled to recover whole commission
Legislation:	Real Estate and Business Agents Act 1978
Case References:	Alpha Trading Ltd v Dunnshaw-Patten Ltd [1981] QB 290 Emmons Mount Gambier Pty Ltd v Specialist Solicitors Network Pty Ltd (2005) NSWCA 117 Financial Industry Complaints Service Ltd v Deakin Financial Services Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1805 [67]; (2006) 157 FCR 229 LJ Hooker Ltd v WJ Adams Estates Pty Ltd (1977) 138 CLR 52 Moneywood Pty Ltd v Salamon Nominees Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 2; (2001) 202 CLR 351

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : ADVANCED REALTORS PTY LTD -v- PRADA CORP DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD [2015] WADC 52 CORAM : STAUDE DCJ HEARD : 23 - 25 FEBRUARY 2015 DELIVERED : 8 MAY 2015 FILE NO/S : CIV 1780 of 2011 BETWEEN : ADVANCED REALTORS PTY LTD

Plaintiff

AND

PRADA CORP DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD

First defendant

MONT APPLECROSS PTY LTD

Second defendant

Catchwords:

Contract - Authority to auction - Claim for agent's commission - Whether seller liable to pay commission - Whether seller sought to avoid liability by deferring contract of sale of land - Whether land sold during exclusive rights period - Whether seller introduced buyers - Whether plaintiff entitled to recover whole commission

Legislation:

Real Estate and Business Agents Act 1978

Result:

Judgment for the plaintiff

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr C Sweeney

First defendant : Mr L Hager

Second defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Eastwood Sweeney Law

First defendant : Metaxas & Hager

Second defendant : Not applicable

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Alpha Trading Ltd v Dunnshaw-Patten Ltd [1981] QB 290
Emmons Mount Gambier Pty Ltd v Specialist Solicitors Network Pty Ltd (2005) NSWCA 117
Financial Industry Complaints Service Ltd v Deakin Financial Services Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1805 [67]; (2006) 157 FCR 229
LJ Hooker Ltd v WJ Adams Estates Pty Ltd (1977) 138 CLR 52
Moneywood Pty Ltd v Salamon Nominees Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 2; (2001) 202 CLR 351

STAUDE DCJ

Introduction

1 The issue in this action is whether the first defendant is liable to pay an agent's commission to the plaintiff in respect of the sale of a residential property.

The agency agreement

2 On 29 September 2010 the first defendant, being the registered proprietor of apartment 12, 4 Scott Street,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Advanced Realtors Pty Ltd v Prada Corp Developments Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Advanced Realtors Pty Ltd v Prada Corp Developments Pty Ltd [2015] WADC 52
Case: [2015] WADC 52
Decision Date: 8 MAY 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between Advanced Realtors Pty Ltd and Prada Corp Developments Pty Ltd. Advanced Realtors, a real estate agency, sought to recover the commission it was owed for acting as the sole and exclusive agent for the sale of a property owned by Prada Corp Developments. The legal issues before the court were whether Prada Corp Developments was liable to pay the commission, whether the seller attempted to avoid its liability by deferring the contract of sale, and whether the property was sold during the exclusive rights period granted to the plaintiff. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the seller had introduced the buyers and if the plaintiff was entitled to recover the whole commission.

The court held that Prada Corp Developments was liable to pay the commission. It found that the property was indeed sold during the exclusive rights period granted to Advanced Realtors. The court also noted that the seller had not introduced the buyers, thereby confirming the plaintiff's role in securing the sale. As a result, the court ruled that Advanced Realtors was entitled to recover the full commission. The court held that Prada Corp Developments' attempt to defer the contract of sale did not absolve it of its obligation to pay the commission, as the sale occurred within the exclusive rights period.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the terms of the exclusive agency agreement, which granted Advanced Realtors the right to act as the sole agent for a specified period. The agreement explicitly stated that the seller would pay the commission if the property was sold during this period, regardless of the timing of the contract of sale. The court emphasised the importance of the exclusive rights period in determining the agent's entitlement to commission. Furthermore, the court held that the seller's introduction of the buyers was irrelevant, as the plaintiff's role in securing the sale was the decisive factor.

The final orders of the court were that judgment was entered in favour of Advanced Realtors. Prada Corp Developments was ordered to pay the full commission to Advanced Realtors for its role as the sole and exclusive agent in the sale of the property. The court's decision reinforced the importance of adhering to the terms of an exclusive agency agreement and the significant role played by real estate agents in securing property sales.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.