Trueman v Hum & Fea Pty Ltd

The case of Trueman v Hum & Fea Pty Ltd involved Ruth Trueman, the appellant, and Hum & Fea Pty Ltd, the respondent. The dispute centred on the interpretation and enforcement of an agency agreement for the sale of real property, specifically the commission payable to the respondent. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was the primary decision maker, and the appellant sought to appeal that decision to a higher tribunal.

The central legal issue was whether the Adjudicator's decision to enforce the commission at 3% of the sale price, as stipulated in the agency agreement, was correct. The appellant argued that the Adjudicator failed to accord her natural justice by not allowing the parties to call oral evidence and cross-examine witnesses. The appellant also contended that the Adjudicator improperly applied the doctrine of promissory estoppel, which could have led to a lesser commission being payable.

In dismissing the appeal, the tribunal found that the Adjudicator's decision was not erroneous. The tribunal held that the appellant, who was legally qualified, signed the agency agreement without qualification, and therefore, she was bound by its terms. The tribunal also found that the appellant had waived her right to renegotiate the commission and that her request for confirmation of commission was not an attempt to renegotiate but related to a different matter. The tribunal concluded that the appeal did not present a question of general importance or a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision.

As a result, the tribunal refused leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal. The primary decision of the Adjudicator to enforce the commission at 3% of the sale price remained intact.