Q-Zar Technology Limited v Scee Nominees Pty Ltd, Ber Nominees Pty Ltd and Raleana Investments Pty Ltd

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Q-Zar Technology Limited (the plaintiff) brought proceedings against Scee Nominees Pty Ltd, Ber Nominees Pty Ltd, and Raleana Investments Pty Ltd (the defendants). The dispute concerned the plaintiff's entitlement to a commission under an agreement for the sale of a property located at 100 William Street, Sydney. The plaintiff alleged that it had introduced the ultimate purchaser to the property and that the sale had been effected as a result of that introduction, thereby entitling it to commission. The defendants denied this, asserting that the plaintiff's introduction was not the effective cause of the sale.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the plaintiff had made an introduction of the purchaser to the property that was the effective cause of the subsequent sale. This required the Court to consider the terms of the agency agreement between the parties and to assess the causal connection between the plaintiff's actions and the eventual transaction. The Court had to determine if the plaintiff's introduction was merely a preliminary step or if it played a decisive role in bringing about the sale.

Justice Ian Thompson found that the plaintiff had indeed introduced the ultimate purchaser to the property. His Honour applied the principle that an agent is entitled to commission if their introduction is the effective cause of the sale, even if the principal subsequently negotiates the final terms or if there is a lapse of time between the introduction and the sale. The Court concluded that the plaintiff's introduction was the causa causans, or the decisive cause, of the sale, and that the defendants' subsequent dealings with the purchaser did not break the chain of causation.

Accordingly, the Court ordered that the plaintiff was entitled to recover commission from the defendants.