EIT Pty Ltd t/a PRWR v AMR

Link copied
Case Copied 33 min read

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

EIT Pty Ltd t/a PRWR v AMR [2016] QCAT 449

PARTIES:

EIT Pty Ltd t/a PRWR

(Applicant)

v

AMR

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Q163 of 2016

DIVISION:

Other minor civil dispute matters

PROCEEDING:

QCAT

ORIGINATING COURT:

Pittsworth

DELIVERED ON:

2 December 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Toowoomba

HEARING DATE:

21 October 2016 (Pittsworth), 27 October 2016  and 11 November 2016 (Toowoomba)

MAGISTRATE:

D Carroll

ORDER:

The application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

COUNSEL:

DCM appeared for the Applicant

AMR appeared on her own behalf

SOLICITORS:

The Claim

  1. This is a claim by EIT Pty Ltd trading as PRWR against AMR for $10,880 being the cost of advertising incurred by the applicant in connection with the proposed sale of the respondent’s property at Pittsworth. 

  1. AMR engaged the applicant to sell her rural property by auction on 11 December 2015 and if the auction is unsuccessful, by private treaty. 

  1. The witnesses in this matter were DCM, a Principal of EIT Pty Ltd and the respondent, AMR.

Relevant Documents

  1. The documents to which I have had regard in this matter are as follows:

Exhibit 1-          Form 6 Appointment of Agent signed by DCM and AMR.  It is dated 3/11/15 by DCM but undated by AMR.

Exhibit 2-          Letter from PRWR to AMR dated 4 November 2015 containing property appraisal;

Exhibit 3-          Property Marketing Schedule;

Exhibit 4 -         Letter from Clewett Lawyers to PRWR dated 4 March 2016;

Exhibit 5 -         Proposed Contract of Sale between AMR and Y;

Exhibit 6 -         Property description provided by AMR to DCM;

Exhibit 7 -         Form 6 signed by AMR and dated 6 November 2015;

Exhibit 8 -         Application for Minor Civil Dispute dated 14 April 2016;

Exhibit 9 -         Response to Minor Civil Dispute dated 26 July 2016

Exhibit 10-        AMR’s submission dated 7 November 2016;

Exhibit 11 -       DCM’s submission dated 11 November 2016;

Exhibit 12 -       AMR’s tax returns from 2012 to 2015;

Exhibit 13 -       Letter from DCM to the Clerk of the Court Toowoomba, dated 3 November 2016 and attachments;

Exhibit 14-        Letter of instructions re: Reserved price from AMR to the auctioneer dated 10 December 2015;

Exhibit 15 -       Form of Notice of Appointment effective from 1 October 2015;

The Agreement

  1. At the outset I understood it was agreed between the parties that the quantum of the applicants claim was $10,880.  After further discussion during the hearing on 11 November 2016 DCM agreed to reduce the claim to $10,685.

  1. The Appointment of a Property Agent is but one of the documents comprising the “agreement” or engagement between the applicant and the respondent referred to above.  The agreement between the parties comprises the following parts:-

(i)         Appointment of Property Agent;

(ii)        Schedule;

(iii)       Essential Terms and Conditions;

(iv)       Any other Annexures.

See section 2 of the “ESSENTIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS”

  1. The Appointment of Property Agent comprises 4 pages.  The last line on page 4/4 is in these terms; “This is the end of the approved form.  Please note, any annexures/schedules form…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read EIT Pty Ltd t/a PRWR v AMR 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
[2016] QCAT 449
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case are EIT Pty Ltd, trading as PRWR, as the applicant, and AMR as the respondent. The dispute arose from a contractual obligation and a subsequent legal action for damages. The case was heard and determined in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The applicant sought relief from the court to address a perceived breach of contract by the respondent.

The legal issues that the court needed to resolve included whether the respondent had indeed breached the terms of the contract and, if so, whether the applicant was entitled to the damages claimed. Additionally, the court had to consider the procedural aspects of the application, particularly the timeliness and merits of the applicant's claim. The court's task was to interpret the contractual terms and assess the evidence provided by both parties to determine the validity and enforceability of the applicant's claims.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the respondent had not breached the contractual terms as alleged by the applicant. The court based this decision on the interpretation of the contract and the evidence presented. The court also noted procedural deficiencies in the applicant's application, which contributed to the dismissal of the case. As a result, the court dismissed the application and ruled that the applicant was not entitled to the damages sought against the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is 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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.