Glamoren Pty Ltd v Lee
Case
•
[2012] QCATA 176
•14 September 2012
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Glamoren Pty Ltd v Lee and Anor [2012] QCATA 176
[2012] QCATA 176
14 September 2012
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Glamoren Pty Ltd v Lee involved the issue of whether an agent was entitled to a commission after introducing a purchaser to the principal, even though the sale was completed by another agent after the sole agency period had expired. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the agent was entitled to a commission under the terms of the agency agreement and whether the "effective cause" test was the correct test to apply in this situation.
The court held that the agent was not entitled to a commission as the relationship between the principal and the third party was established by another agent, and not by the original agent who had introduced the purchaser. The court found that the "effective cause" test was not the appropriate test to apply in this situation, as it did not take into account the terms of the agency agreement. The court held that the correct test to apply was whether the agent had fulfilled the conditions essential to entitle them to remuneration, which in this case was the establishment of a relationship between the principal and the third party. The court also found that interest should be awarded to the principal for the delay in payment of the commission.
The court allowed the appeal brought by the principal, setting aside the previous order made on 7 March 2012. In lieu of that order, the court ordered that the defendants shall pay the plaintiff $16,720.00 within 60 days of the date of the judgment. The court also granted the principal leave to appeal, which was subsequently allowed.
The court held that the agent was not entitled to a commission as the relationship between the principal and the third party was established by another agent, and not by the original agent who had introduced the purchaser. The court found that the "effective cause" test was not the appropriate test to apply in this situation, as it did not take into account the terms of the agency agreement. The court held that the correct test to apply was whether the agent had fulfilled the conditions essential to entitle them to remuneration, which in this case was the establishment of a relationship between the principal and the third party. The court also found that interest should be awarded to the principal for the delay in payment of the commission.
The court allowed the appeal brought by the principal, setting aside the previous order made on 7 March 2012. In lieu of that order, the court ordered that the defendants shall pay the plaintiff $16,720.00 within 60 days of the date of the judgment. The court also granted the principal leave to appeal, which was subsequently allowed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Contract Law
Legal Concepts
-
Contract Formation
-
Remuneration or Commission
-
Sole Agency
-
Appeal
-
Compensatory Damages
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Mizzii v Ballin [2019] QCAT 216
Cases Citing This Decision
16
Mair Renovations v Miller
[2016] QCATA 79
Mizzii v Ballin
[2019] QCAT 216
Worthington t/as Worthington Simmons Builders v Ryan
[2017] QCAT 12
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
0
Moneywood Pty Ltd v Salamon Nominees Pty Ltd
[2001] HCA 2
Moneywood Pty Ltd v Salamon Nominees Pty Ltd
[2001] HCA 2
Newman v Anserdoro Pty Ltd
[2008] NSWSC 371