Floyd v Nevgold Pty Ltd

[2024] QDC 199

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Floyd v Nevgold Pty Ltd [2024] QDC 199

PARTIES:

MALCOLM LEWIS FLOYD

(plaintiff)

v

NEVGOLD PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE OF BRIAN JORGENSEN FAMILY TRUST

(defendant)

FILENO:

109/23

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court

DELIVEREDON:

22 November 2024

DELIVEREDAT:

Cairns

HEARINGDATE:

18, 19 and 20 November 2024

JUDGE:

Porter KC DCJ

ORDER:

1.   Judgment be entered for the plaintiff for $137, 300 inclusive of interest.

2.   The counterclaim is dismissed.

3.   The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings, including reserved costs, on the District Court scale and on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – Particular parties – Rights of agent against principal – where the agency agreement provided the plaintiff was entitled to commission where he was the effective cause of a completed sale contract – where the agent introduced OneFin as a buyer– where Onefin did not enter into a contract of sale, but obtained a call option to purchase the property – where the call option provided that Onefin or its nominee could exercise the call option – where Onefin decided not to exercise the call option and retained its own agent to find a buyer for the properties – where a buyer was located by Onefin’s agent – where the buyer and Onefin agreed that the buyer would be nominated under the call option and execute the contract of sale attached thereto – where Onefin exercised the Option and nominated the buyer – whether the plaintiff agent was the effective cause of the sale of the subject properties

CONTRACTS – Particular parties – Rights of agent against principal  –  Remuneration  or  commission  –  where  the

defendant alleges the plaintiff agent breached fiduciary and tortious duties by failing to disclose certain information and failing to apply his best endeavours to obtain the best price for the principal – where the plaintiff says he passed on the information to the defendant and that the defendant had regard to it in its decision making – where the defendant claims loss of a valuable commercial opportunity to negotiate for a higher price

CASES:

LJ Hooker Limited v W J Adams Estates Pty Limited (1977) 138 CLR 52

Lord v Trippe (1977) 51 ALJR 574

Moneywood Pty Limited v Salamon Nominees Pty Limited

(2001) 202 CLR 351

Moore v Luxury Boar Holdings Pty Ltd [2020] WASCA 144

Outerbridge v Hall (2020) 102 NSWLR 921

Rasmussen & Russo Pty Ltd v Gaviglio [1982] Qd R 571

COUNSEL:

C. J. Ryall for the plaintiff

J. P. Hastie for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

O’Reilly’s Stevens for the plaintiff Rostron Carlyle Rojas for the defendant

Contents

SUMMARY............................................................................................................................ 3

THE WITNESSES................................................................................................................ 4

THE FACTS.......................................................................................................................... 5

Background........................................................................................................................ 5

The negotiation of the Option........................................................................................... 6

Findings on 13 and 22 September meetings................................................................ 11

Events leading to the contract of sale............................................................................. 13

THE EFFECTIVE CAUSE CLAIM................................................................................. 16

The Law............................................................................................................................ 16

Analysis............................................................................................................................. 21

THE BREACH OF DUTY CLAIMS................................................................................. 23

SUMMARY

1. The plaintiff (Mr Floyd) is a real estate agent. The defendant (