Reginald Bell v Yeronga Village Pty Ltd - [2023] QCAT 75

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Reginald Bell v Yeronga Village Pty Ltd [2023] QCAT 75

PARTIES:

Reginald john bell

(applicant)

v

yeronga village pty ltd as trustee for the yv unit trust t/as the village retirement group

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCL102-21

MATTER TYPE:

Other civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

28 February 2023

HEARING DATE:

14 November 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Poteri

ORDERS:

The application(s) made by Reginald John Bell to set aside the contract between Reginald John Bell and Yeronga Village Pty Ltd as Trustee for the YV Unit Trust to purchase an interest in Apartment 5206 and for compensation to be paid to Reginald John Bell are dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

General Contract Matters under the Retirement Villages Act 1999 (the Act) – Where a party has entered into a contract to purchase an interest in a retirement village – where the party alleges misleading or deceptive conduct on the part of scheme operator pursuant to s 86 of the Act – where the party is seeking to set aside the contract pursuant to s 170 of the Act and claim compensation from the scheme operator pursuant to s 193 of the Act – Relevance of the provisions of the Act after the party has transferred the interest in the retirement village prior to the hearing and an order being made by the Tribunal.

Retirement Villages Act 1999 (Qld), s 3, s 9, s 10, s 86, s 170, s 193

Maxwell v Murphy 96 CLR 261

Chancellor Park Retirement Village Pty Ltd v Retirement Villages Tribunal & Ors [2004] Qd R 346

Bell v Churches of Christ Care [2017] QCAT 360

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self Represented

Respondent:

Self Represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

This matter was heard before me in person on 14 November 2022. At the commencement of the proceedings, the Applicant, Reginald John Bell (Bell), appeared with Mr BA Hall of Counsel. Bell made an application to be legally represented. The Respondent, Yeronga Village Pty Ltd (Yeronga), was represented by Justin Harrison (Harrison), who is the managing director of Yeronga. Harrison objected to Bell being legally represented so I decided to allow Counsel to be seated with Bell to provide assistance to Bell. I informed Harrison that if he had any questions or concerns he could seek guidance from me. I also advised him that he could seek an adjournment at any stage to obtain legal advice from his lawyer.
At the conclusion of the hearing, I did allow Counsel to make some final submissions which were also outlined in written submissions. Further I allowed time after the hearing for Harrison to file written submissions on behalf of Yeronga in response to Bell’s closing submissions.
The parties did not raise any jurisdiction or legal issues at the commencement of the hearing, so I proceeded to hear the matter. At the hearing the evidence mainly centred on the issue of whether a misleading or deceptive representation had been made by Yeronga to Bell to…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Reginald Bell v Yeronga Village Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] QCAT 75
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Reginald John Bell brought an application against Yeronga Village Pty Ltd to set aside a contract to purchase an interest in Apartment 5206 and to claim compensation. Bell alleged that Yeronga Village engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct when it represented to him that the average age of residents in the Village was about 70. Bell's application was dismissed by Member Poteri. Bell claimed that Yeronga Village engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by stating that the average age of residents in the Village was about 70. Bell's claim was dismissed by Member Poteri on the basis that Bell was not a resident of the Village at the time of the hearing, and therefore, he was not entitled to the relief sought under the Retirement Villages Act 1999 (Qld). The member noted that the relief sought under the Act was only available to residents of the Village who had a current residence contract with the Village. Since Bell had already sold his interest in the Village and was no longer a resident, the member concluded that it was impractical to set aside the contract and declare it void ab initio. The member also noted that the Act did not provide for retrospective relief, and the relief available under the Act was limited to the power conferred on the Tribunal by the Act and other relevant legislation. Therefore, the member dismissed Bell's application.

No further orders were made by the member.

Orders