Quach v ATM Residential Pty Ltd

The plaintiff, Michael Quach, filed an originating process against ATM Residential Pty Ltd t/a McGrath North Canberra, seeking various remedies for an alleged sale of a property at a lower price than his offer. ATM applied to be removed as a party to the proceedings, arguing that it had no connection to the property sale and was not the proper defendant. The court had to decide whether ATM should be removed as a party under r 230 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) or whether there were grounds for ATM to receive an order for security for costs.

The court found that Dr Quach had sued the wrong entity and that ATM should be removed as a party to the proceedings. The court was satisfied that the proceedings should be dismissed due to the clear evidence that ATM had been inappropriately and unnecessarily included as the only defendant. The court rejected Dr Quach's arguments that ATM was somehow connected to the property sale or that it was operating in two business development areas in breach of its franchise agreement. The court held that the relief sought by Dr Quach was not ATM's concern and that ATM had been inappropriately and unnecessarily included as the defendant in the proceedings.

The court ordered that ATM Residential Pty Ltd be removed as the defendant to the proceedings, ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs, and dismissed the proceedings. The court did not consider it appropriate to make a pre-emptive order precluding Dr Quach from suing ATM again on the same facts. However, the court noted that if Dr Quach were to bring proceedings against ATM again on the same facts, those proceedings should not be permitted to be prosecuted until the costs order made by the court had been satisfied.