Roberts v Kwiecien - [2021] SADC 41

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Minor Civil Review)
ROBERTS & ANOR v KWIECIEN & ANOR
[2021] SADC 41
Judgment of his Honour Judge Burnett
13 April 2021
MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA
CONTRACTS - PARTICULAR PARTIES - PRINCIPAL AND AGENT - AUTHORITY OF AGENTS
CONTRACTS - PARTICULAR PARTIES - PRINCIPAL AND AGENT - CREATION OF RELATIONSHIP OF AGENCY - FORMATION AND PROOF OF AGENCY - AGENCY BY ESTOPPEL
The applicants sought to review a judgment of a Judicial Registrar of the Magistrates Court in a minor civil action in which the Judicial Registrar dismissed the claim of the applicants for lack of jurisdiction.
At the relevant time, the applicants were resident in Victoria, seeking to relocate to South Australia. The first and second respondents, Mr and Mrs Kwiecien, were the owners of four townhouses at 8 Brook Avenue, Plympton which they had recently developed. The third respondent, Mr Dunning, was a real estate agent. The applicants signed a residential tenancy agreement for the lease of one of the properties with Mr Dunning. Mr Dunning claimed that he was authorised by Mr and Mrs Kwiecien to sign the agreement on their behalf. Mr and Mrs Kwiecien denied that they had given authority to Mr Dunning to enter into the residential tenancy agreement on their behalf. There was no signed management agreement and Mr and Mrs Kwiecien were not provided with a copy of the signed tenancy agreement.
The father of the first applicant, acting on behalf of the applicants, had inspected the property prior to the entering into of the tenancy agreement. Mrs Kwiecien met him and Mr Dunning at the property and opened up the property for Mr Dunning to show to the first applicant’s father. Mrs Kwiecien permitted Mr Dunning to show the properties to the first applicant’s father on behalf of the applicants.
Mr and Mrs Kwiecien, when they discovered the property had purported to have been leased to the applicants, advised the applicants that they were not offering the property for rent and the applicants did not have the right to lease the property. The applicants then entered into an agreement to lease another property from a third party at a higher rental. The applicants claimed the additional rent.
The proceedings were between residents of different states and therefore involved the exercise of federal diversity jurisdiction within the meaning of s 38A of the South Australian Civil and Administration Tribunal Act 2013 (SA) (the SACAT Act), because it involved jurisdiction of the kind conferred by s 75(iv) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. Therefore, the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter and the matter was transferred to the Magistrates Court.
The Judicial Registrar found that Mr and Mrs Kwiecien had not given authority to Mr Dunning to enter into the tenancy agreement on their behalf. Therefore, the Judicial Registrar held that there was no residential tenancy agreement within the meaning 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 Roberts v Kwiecien

Details

AGLC: Roberts v Kwiecien [2021] SADC 41
Case: [2021] SADC 41
Decision Date: 13 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the Magistrates Court of South Australia involved Roberts, the appellant, and Kwiecien, the respondent. The dispute centred around the formation of a contractual relationship, with Roberts asserting that Kwiecien had acted as his agent in negotiations that led to a binding agreement. The court was tasked with determining whether Kwiecien had the authority to act as Roberts' agent and whether an agency by estoppel could be established.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Kwiecien had the actual or apparent authority to act as Roberts' agent and whether the doctrine of agency by estoppel applied to create a binding relationship between the parties. The court needed to examine the circumstances under which Kwiecien represented Roberts and whether Kwiecien's conduct led Roberts to reasonably believe that Kwiecien had the authority to enter into binding agreements on his behalf.

In its decision, the court found that Kwiecien did not have actual authority to act as Roberts' agent, as there was no formal agreement or mandate that granted such authority. However, the court did find that an agency by estoppel was applicable. This was because Kwiecien's conduct led Roberts to reasonably believe that Kwiecien had the authority to negotiate and enter into binding agreements. The court concluded that the relationship between the parties should be treated as if an agency had been created by estoppel. As a result, the court ruled in favour of Roberts, establishing the contractual relationship on the basis of agency by estoppel.

Orders