QUACH & GLC PARTNERS PTY LTD

Case [2025] QCAT 265

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION: 

 QUACH & GLC PARTNERS PTY LTD [2025] QCAT 265

PARTIES:
MICHAEL VAN THANH QUACH

(applicant)

V
GLC PARTNERS PTY LTD T/A RAY WHITE CLAYFIELD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

Q2074-25

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

DECISION DATE:

12 March 2025

REASONS:

18 June 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Lember

ORDERS:

1.     The Respondent’s name is amended to ‘GLC Partners Pty Ltd t/a Ray White Clayfield’.

2. The application for minor civil dispute – consumer/trader dispute is dismissed pursuant to section 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

CATCHWORDS:

TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES IN CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES – whether real estate agent a trader within the meaning of the QCAT Act – whether a statutory exception applies to real estate agency as a discipline not ordinarily regarded as within the field of trade or commerce – whether licensed real estate agent falls within that description

Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552

Amos v Walter [2021] QCATA 105

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175

Bond Corporation Pty Ltd v Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd (1987) 14 FCR 215

Bradfield v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1924) 34 CLR 1

Carr v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1944] 2 All ER 163

Currie v Commissioners of Inland Revenue [1921] 2 KB 332

Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners [1949] 78 CLR 62

Early Property Group Pty Ltd (t/a Early Group Valuers v Cavallaro [2010] QCATA 65

Ex parte McLean (1930) 43 CLR 472

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125

Grommen v Hawes [2018] QCATA 49

Kommouna & Anor v A W & K J Reid Pty Ltd (t/a Reid Real Estate) Unreported, APL 313 of 2017

Markan v Bar Association of Queensland [2013] QSC 146

Penfold v Firkin & Balvius [2023] QCATA 11

Peng v Darley Properties Pty Ltd (t/a L J Hooker Caboolture-Morayfield) [2022] QCATA 45

Platinum United II Pty Ltd & Anor v Secured Mortgage Management Ltd (in liq) [2011] QCA 162

Prestia v Aknar (1996) 40 NSWLR 165

Robbins Herbal Institute v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1923) 32 CLR 457

Rowley v Abacus Associates Pty Ltd & Anor [2017] QCAT 36

Social & Community Welfare Services (State) Award (1984) 8 IR 364

Yeo v Brisbane Polo Club Inc [2013] QCAT 261

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Schedule 2

Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) s 50, s 50A

Property Occupations Act 2014 (Qld) s 16, s 34, s 45, s 167, s 169, s 172, s 173

Property Occupations Regulation 2014 (Qld) s 18, s 21

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 3, s 4, s 12, s 47, s 62, Schedule 3

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant…

Continue reading QUACH & GLC PARTNERS PTY LTD

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
QUACH & GLC PARTNERS PTY LTD [2025] QCAT 265
Case
[2025] QCAT 265
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal involved Quach, acting on behalf of a group of consumers, against GLC Partners Pty Ltd, a real estate agency trading as Ray White Clayfield. The consumers sought redress under the Australian Consumer Law, alleging that GLC Partners had failed to provide a service with due care and skill, which they argued constituted misleading or deceptive conduct. The case hinged on whether the real estate agent qualified as a trader under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 and whether any statutory exceptions applied to real estate agencies as a discipline not typically considered within the realm of trade or commerce.

The central legal issue was whether GLC Partners, as a licensed real estate agent, was considered a trader under the QCAT Act. Additionally, the court needed to determine if a statutory exception applied to real estate agencies, classifying them as a discipline not commonly associated with the field of trade or commerce. The court examined the nature of the real estate agency business and whether it fell within the statutory description of trades not ordinarily regarded as within the field of commerce.

The tribunal found that GLC Partners did not qualify as a trader under the QCAT Act, as real estate agencies were not typically regarded as being within the field of trade or commerce. The tribunal concluded that the statutory exception applied to real estate agencies, thereby exempting them from the definition of a trader under the Act. Consequently, the application for a minor civil dispute in relation to the consumer/trader dispute was dismissed.

The tribunal dismissed the application for a minor civil dispute and did not grant any relief to the consumers. The name of the respondent was amended to reflect its trading name as 'GLC Partners Pty Ltd t/a Ray White Clayfield'.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Respondent’s name is amended to ‘GLC Partners Pty Ltd t/a Ray White Clayfield’.

2. The application for minor civil dispute – consumer/trader dispute is dismissed pursuant to section 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

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.