Reeves v Elsgrove Pty Ltd - [1999] QDC 265

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

[Reeves v Elsgrove Pty Ltd]

REGISTRY: BRISBANE
NUMBER: 2174 OF 1999

Plaintiffs:
RICHARD REEVES and ELAINE ALICE REEVES

AND

Defendant:
ELSGROVE PTY LTD

JUDGMENT - SAMIOS D.C.J.

Judgment Delivered: 5 November 1999

Catchwords: VENDOR AND PURCHASER - trade practices - contract for sale of land in subdivision - representation by agent of vendor that roads were to be local access roads - agent aware of proposals to upgrade roads beyond local access standard - misleading and deceptive conduct - contract declared void - order for return of deposit and compensation - s.87(1) and (1A) Trade Practices Act 1974 - Demagogue Pty Ltd v. Ramensky & Anor (1992) 39 FCR 31.

Counsel for the plaintiffs: Mr. M.D. Martin

Counsel for the defendant: Mr. K. Howe

Solicitors for the plaintiffs: Quinn & Scattini

Solicitors for the defendant: David Colwell & Co

Hearing Dates: 28 and 29 October 1999
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

REGISTRY:     BRISBANE
  NUMBER:    2174 OF 1999
Plaintiffs:
  RICHARD REEVES and ELAINE ALICE REEVES
AND

Defendant:
ELSGROVE PTY LTD

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - SAMIOS D.C.J.
Delivered the 5^th day of November 1999

The plaintiffs’ claim is for a declaration pursuant to s.87 of the Trade Practices Act (“the Act”) that a contract (“the contract”) entered into between the plaintiffs as purchasers and the defendant as vendor for the sale of a vacant residential block of land at Lot 56, Vantage Court, Warner in the State of Queensland (“the land”) be void, or in the alternative a declaration that the plaintiffs have effectively rescinded the contract.

The plaintiffs further claim repayment of the deposit of $1,000 paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant and $580 being the costs and expenses incurred by the plaintiffs in or about the sale.
The plaintiffs also claim a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to a lien on the land for the sums of $1,000 and $580 referred to above.

There is no dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendant that the plaintiffs entered into the contract for the purchase of the land. Further, there is no dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendant that all negotiations leading to the making of the contract were conducted by the plaintiffs and Paul Lambert on behalf of the defendant.

However, the plaintiffs claim that in the course of the negotiations leading to the making of the contract Mr. Lambert made five representations (para. 4 of the plaint). However, at the trial the plaintiffs proceeded with only one of those representations, namely:-

“That the dirt road (Brisbane Road and the road it leads onto Old North Road (a blind road)) would be sealed as a local access road.”

The plaintiffs allege they were induced by this representation to sign the contract. The plaintiffs also allege that this representation was conduct of the defendant by Mr. Lambert that constituted misleading or deceptive conduct in trade and commerce within s.52 of the Act (para. 6 of the plaint). Particulars were provided by the plaintiff of…

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 Reeves v Elsgrove Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Reeves v Elsgrove Pty Ltd [1999] QDC 265
Case: [1999] QDC 265
Decision Date: 5 November 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The District Court of Queensland was asked to determine if a real estate contract was void due to misleading and deceptive conduct by the vendor's agent. Richard and Elaine Reeves, the plaintiffs, alleged that Paul Lambert, an agent for Elsgrove Pty Ltd, the defendant, made a misleading representation about the future development of roads near the property they intended to purchase. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that Lambert represented that the roads would be sealed as local access roads, whereas the plaintiffs later discovered that the roads were planned to be upgraded significantly. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the contract was void, repayment of their deposit, and compensation for costs incurred.

The court found that Lambert did make the representation about the roads being sealed for local access, and this was misleading given the council's plans to upgrade the roads substantially. The court accepted the plaintiffs' evidence over Lambert's denial, noting inconsistencies and improbabilities in Lambert's account. The court concluded that Lambert's conduct was misleading and deceptive under the Trade Practices Act, and the plaintiffs had relied on this representation to enter into the contract. As a result, the court declared the contract void and ordered the defendant to return the deposit and compensate the plaintiffs for their costs.

Orders