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
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicants:
Self-represented
Respondent:
Mr Watson, Millwood Rise Developments Pty Ltd
REASONS FOR DECISION
Application
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
The uncontroversial facts may be summarised in the following terms.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2023] QCAT 512
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.