Juniper v Roberts

In the case of Juniper v Roberts, the plaintiff, Juniper, sought a declaration that the defendants, Roberts, had breached a statutory obligation under the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000, which led to the lawful termination of a property sale contract. The defendants were also alleged to have breached the contract by causing damage to the property, for which they sought unliquidated damages. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The plaintiff argued that the defendants had failed to attach a required warning statement to the contract, in breach of section 366(1) of the Act, which entitled the plaintiff to terminate the contract under section 367(2). The defendants contended that the plaintiff had waived his right to terminate the contract or elected not to exercise that right by proceeding with the contract. The defendants also argued that the plaintiff's conduct, including performing work on the property, leasing it, and advertising it for sale, prevented him from exercising his statutory right to terminate under section 367(2) of the Act.

The court considered whether the defendants' failure to attach the warning statement constituted a breach of section 366(1) of the Act and whether this breach entitled the plaintiff to lawfully terminate the contract under section 367(2). The court also considered whether the plaintiff had waived his right to terminate the contract or elected not to exercise that right. The court further examined whether the plaintiff's conduct prevented him from exercising his statutory right to terminate under section 367(2) of the Act. The court also considered the defendants' counterclaim for unliquidated damages for damage to the property and whether such a claim was properly treated as a set-off or counterclaim. The court held that the defendants had failed to attach the required warning statement, which constituted a breach of section 366(1) of the Act. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to lawfully terminate the contract under section 367(2) of the Act. The court held that the plaintiff had not waived his right to terminate the contract or elected not to exercise that right. The court held that the plaintiff's conduct did not prevent him from exercising his statutory right to terminate under section 367(2) of the Act. The court held that the defendants' counterclaim for unliquidated damages was not properly treated as a set-off but could be part of a separate proceeding.

The court made several orders in favour of the plaintiff. Firstly, the court declared that the defendants had failed to comply with section 366(1) of the Act by failing to attach a warning statement as its first or top sheet to the contract. Secondly, the court declared that the plaintiff had lawfully terminated the contract pursuant to section 367(2) of the Act. Thirdly, the court ordered judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants in the amount of $242,413.64. The court also sought further submissions as to costs.