Hewitt and Hosking v The Property Agents and Motor Dealers Tribunal and John Gallagher

In the case of Hewitt and Hosking v The Property Agents and Motor Dealers Tribunal and John Gallagher, the applicants, Hewitt and Hosking, sought to claim compensation from a statutory fund established under the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (PAMD Act). This was after they had previously suffered pecuniary losses due to the actions of a real estate agent and had missed the deadline for claiming under the earlier Auctioneers and Agents Act 1971 (AAA Act). The respondents were the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Tribunal, John Gallagher, and the fund established under the PAMD Act. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The legal issues that the court had to address were whether the applicants could claim against the new fund established under the PAMD Act despite having missed the deadline for claiming under the AAA Act, and whether the time limitation for making claims under the PAMD Act applied to the applicants' situation. The applicants argued that the new legislation should be interpreted in a way that allowed them to claim against the new fund. The respondents argued that the statutory time limitation applied to the new legislation as well.

The court held that the statutory time limitation applied to the new legislation and that the applicants' claims were time-barred. The court found that the right to claim against the fund was conditional upon compliance with the time limitation, and that the repeal and replacement of the AAA Act with the PAMD Act did not change this. The court also held that the applicants' claims were not saved by any provision in the PAMD Act that might have allowed for extensions of time in exceptional circumstances. The court quashed the tribunal's decision and declared that the applicants did not have a valid and enforceable claim against the claim fund established under the PAMD Act. There was no order as to costs.