Famestock Pty Ltd v The Body Corporate for No 9 Port Douglas Road Community Title Scheme 24368

Famestock Pty Ltd, the appellant, brought an action against The Body Corporate for No 9 Port Douglas Road Community Title Scheme 24368, the respondent, in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant, who held a restricted real estate licence as a letting agent for the respondent, sought damages and an injunction when their licence lapsed due to non-renewal and they also breached agreements that required them to maintain such a licence. The appellant argued that the implied duty to cooperate required the respondent to assist in obtaining a new licence and to ignore the appellant's breaches. The respondent denied these claims, arguing that the appellant's breaches negated any implied duty to cooperate and that an unauthorised committee resolution to terminate the management agreement was not binding on the body corporate.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the implied duty to cooperate required the respondent to assist the appellant in obtaining a new licence despite the appellant's breaches and whether the implied duty to cooperate was a continuing obligation. Additionally, the court had to determine if the respondent breached the implied duty to cooperate by not assisting the appellant to renew the licence. The court also needed to decide if the unauthorised committee resolution to terminate the management agreement could be attributed to the body corporate and if it amounted to a repudiation of the contract.

The court found that the implied duty to cooperate did not compel the respondent to assist the appellant in obtaining a new licence due to the appellant's breaches. It held that the duty to cooperate was not a continuing obligation and that the respondent did not breach the implied duty to cooperate by not assisting the appellant to renew the licence. The court further determined that the unauthorised committee resolution to terminate the management agreement was not binding on the body corporate and did not amount to a repudiation of the contract. The court dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-appeal, setting aside the orders made on 26 October 2012 and ordering judgment for the respondent with costs.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed with costs, the cross-appeal was allowed with costs, the orders made on 26 October 2012 were set aside, and in lieu, judgment was entered for the respondent with costs.