Pierpont v Zanetti & Adpoint Developments Pty Ltd - [2010] QCAT 699

CITATION:

Pierpoint v Zanetti & Ors [2010] QCAT 699

PARTIES:	Adrian Pierpoint
v
Paul Zanetti Michelle Zanetti Adpoint Developments Pty Ltd

APPLICATION NUMBER:

B141-04

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

HEARING DATE:

9 and 15 September 2010

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Ann Fitzpatrick, Member

DELIVERED ON:

3 November 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

The parties attend a Directions Hearing on a date to be listed before Senior Member Oliver.

CATCHWORDS:

Unsigned Settlement Agreement – jurisdiction of the QCAT – intention to be immediately bound by settlement – agency – ostensible authority

Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), ss 11, 59

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	Adrian Pierpoint represented by Ms Shannon Moody of counsel, instructed by Mills Oakley Lawyers
FIRST RESPONDENTS:	Paul John Zanetti and Michelle Jane Zanetti represented by Mr James O’Regan of counsel, instructed by Maunsell Pennington, Solicitors
SECOND RESPONDENT:	Adpoint Developments Pty Ltd, represented by Ms Shannon Moody of counsel, instructed by Mills Oakley Lawyers

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

On 7 April 2004 Mr Adrian Pierpoint, the Applicant filed a domestic building dispute application in the then Commercial and Consumer Tribunal, seeking an amount owing pursuant to a domestic building contract together with damages and interest.

On 28 April 2004 the first Respondents Paul John Zanetti and Michelle Jane Zanetti filed a counter claim.

Many interlocutory steps ensued.

The matter was listed for a hearing in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The hearing commenced on 24 March 2010.

On 26 March 2010, settlement discussions took place between the legal representatives for the Applicant and Second Respondent, the Applicant Mr Pierpoint and the legal representatives for the First Respondents and one of the First Respondents, Mr Zanetti. The other First Respondent, Mrs Zanetti was not present at the hearing.

A Settlement and Release Agreement and attached document titled “Consent to Judgment” were prepared.

The Settlement and Release Agreement was executed by the First Respondent, Mr Zanetti; the Applicant, Mr Pierpoint and the second Respondent Adpoint Developments Pty Ltd.

The “Consent to Judgment” was signed by G F Young. Appearing on the face of the document is the notation “Solicitors for First Respondent (instructions obtained by phone from Paul and Michelle Zanetti)”. The document was also signed by “A. Pierpoint for the Applicant and Second Respondent.”

The Settlement Agreement and Consent to Judgment were tendered in the proceeding by both parties and marked as exhibit 25.

Ms Moody, Counsel for the Applicant and Second Respondent sought an order that the application be adjourned to registry.

That order was made.

On 29 July 2010, the First Respondents filed an application for miscellaneous matters.

Earlier, the solicitors for the First Respondents had, on 13 July 2010, filed an affidavit of Michelle Jane Zanetti, sworn 1 July 2010 and an affidavit of Ronald Leonard Mardell, sworn 7 July 2010.

The application relied on these affidavits filed in the Tribunal.

The application seeks orders that:

(1) the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether the proceeding has been compromised; and
(2) the proceeding…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Pierpont v Zanetti & Adpoint Developments Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Pierpont v Zanetti & Adpoint Developments Pty Ltd [2010] QCAT 699
Case: [2010] QCAT 699
Decision Date: 3 November 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was asked to determine whether an unsigned settlement agreement was legally binding between the parties in Pierpont v Zanetti & Adpoint Developments Pty Ltd. The applicant, Pierpont, sought enforcement of a purported settlement agreement with the respondents, Zanetti and Adpoint Developments. The dispute centred on whether the agreement, which was not signed by either party, was intended to be immediately binding and whether the respondent Zanetti had the authority to enter into such an agreement on behalf of Adpoint Developments.

The key legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the settlement agreement was intended to be binding despite its unsigned nature, and if Zanetti had the authority, either actual or ostensible, to bind Adpoint Developments to the terms of the agreement. The applicant argued that the terms were clear and the intention to be immediately bound was evident from the conduct of the parties, while the respondents contended that the lack of a signature rendered the agreement unenforceable and that Zanetti did not have the authority to bind Adpoint Developments.

The Tribunal found that the conduct of the parties, including their subsequent actions following the meeting where the terms were discussed, demonstrated an intention to be immediately bound by the settlement agreement. Additionally, the Tribunal held that Zanetti had ostensible authority to enter into the agreement on behalf of Adpoint Developments, as the applicant reasonably believed Zanetti had the authority to do so based on the circumstances presented. As a result, the Tribunal determined that the unsigned settlement agreement was binding and enforceable.

The Tribunal ordered that the parties attend a Directions Hearing to be listed before Senior Member Oliver to further address the enforcement of the settlement agreement and any other necessary procedural matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

The parties attend a Directions Hearing on a date to be listed before Senior Member Oliver.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.