Evenden & Anor v Millwood Rise Developments Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 9 min read

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Evenden & Anor v Millwood Rise Developments Pty Ltd [2023] QCAT 512

PARTIES:

MARK ALFRED EVENDEN
ELIZABETH EVENDEN

(applicants)

v

MILLWOOD RISE DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

Q325/23

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

18 December 2023

HEARING DATE:

17 October 2023

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Scott-Mackenzie

ORDER:

The respondent pay to the applicants $19,718.41 within 21 days of this order

CATCHWORDS:

MINOR CIVIL DIPUTE – contract for houses and residential land – deposit paid – offer of new contract at higher price – options identified – whether contract terminated by mutual agreement – whether contract repudiated

Codelfa Constructions Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 337

Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Council v Sanpine Pty Ltd (2007) 233 CLR115

Shevill v Builders Licensing Board (1982) 149 CLR 620

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicants:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Mr Watson, Millwood Rise Developments Pty Ltd

REASONS FOR DECISION

Application

  1. The applicants, on 17 March 2023, made application to the Tribunal for payment to them by the respondent of $17,950.00, together with $329.17 interest and $367.00 the fee on filing the application (application).

Uncontroversial facts

  1. The uncontroversial facts may be summarised in the following terms.

  2. On 22 October 2021 the parties entered into a contract for houses and residential land under which the respondent agreed to sell to the applicants and the applicants agreed to buy from the respondent proposed lot 48, Millwood Rise, 41 Glenbrook Drive, Nambour for $359,000.00 payable by an initial deposit of $1,000.00 and the balance of the deposit of $16,950.00 on satisfaction or waiver of a finance condition (contract). The applicants paid to the respondent both the initial deposit and the balance of the deposit.

  3. On 9 November 2022 the applicants received from Mr Simon Ewing, a sales consultant for CFMG Residential Communities, on behalf of the respondent, an email inquiring whether they had received the letter attached to the email (Mr Ewing’s first email).  They had not.

  4. The letter is from the general manager of CFMG Residential Communities, Mr Andrew Thomson.  It is addressed to the applicants and dated 24 October 2022 (24 October 2022 letter).  The opening paragraph of the letter reads:

    As you may be aware, our progress with the physical execution of the Millwood Rise Estate at Nambour has been delayed as a consequence of matters beyond our control.

  5. The letter outlines some of the reasons for the delay and states the building work will commence on 10 October 2022.  Then, it is said:

    Because of the significant delays and cost pressures we will act in our financial best interest and in turn those of our lenders when deciding whether to act upon the statutory 18 month period.

    To provide you with a greater level of certainty and as a show of good faith we will enter into a fresh contract with you for the sale and purchase of lot 48 at Millwood Rise at a purchase price of…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Evenden & Anor v Millwood Rise Developments Pty Ltd 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
[2023] QCAT 512
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court, Evenden & Anor (the applicants) sued Millwood Rise Developments Pty Ltd (the respondent) over a contract for houses and residential land. The applicants had paid a deposit and the respondent had offered a new contract at a higher price, identifying certain options. The applicants sought a declaration that the contract had been terminated by mutual agreement, and an order for the return of the deposit. The respondent argued that the applicants had repudiated the contract, entitling it to retain the deposit.

The court had to decide whether the contract was terminated by mutual agreement or whether the applicants had repudiated the contract. The court noted that the applicants had proposed a new contract, which the respondent had not accepted. The court found that the applicants had not repudiated the contract, and that the contract was terminated by mutual agreement. The court also found that the applicants were entitled to a return of the deposit, less certain amounts. The respondent argued that the applicants had not fulfilled certain obligations, but the court found that the applicants had no obligation to do so.

The court ordered that the respondent pay the applicants $19,718.41 within 21 days of the order. The court found that the applicants were entitled to a return of the deposit, less certain amounts, including a deduction for the cost of a survey and legal fees. The court found that the respondent was not entitled to retain the deposit on the basis that the applicants had repudiated the contract. The court found that the applicants had not repudiated the contract, and that the contract was terminated by mutual agreement. The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicants the amount specified within 21 days.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent pay to the applicants $19,718.41 within 21 days of this order

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.