Williams v ATM & CPA Projects Pty Limited [2015] NSWSC 703

Williams v ATM & CPA Projects Pty Limited [2015] NSWSC 703

On proper construction, the 1 December Agreement entitled plaintiffs to commission only if they procured a sale and building contract within six weeks; since this did not occur, and the agreement was later abandoned, plaintiffs are not entitled to commission. Even if entitled, they were precluded by s 8 of the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act as they were not licensed real estate agents.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Michael Williams; Second Plaintiff: Graham Morison; Third Plaintiff: Solglen Pty Ltd ACN 002 376 481; First Defendant: ATM & CPA Projects Pty Limited ACN 116 458 407; Second Defendant: Tony Merhi
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment at Trial
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Construction and Interpretation of Contracts, Identification of Parties to Contract, Abandonment of Contracts, Remuneration of Agents, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Real Estate Agent Licensing, Right to Commission, Australian Consumer Law, Property, Stock and Business Agents Act
Contracts Trade and Commerce Professions and Trades Construction and Interpretation of Contracts Identification of Parties to Contract Abandonment of Contracts Remuneration of Agents Misleading or Deceptive Conduct +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Williams

First Plaintiff

Graham Morison

Second Plaintiff

Solglen Pty Ltd ACN 002 376 481

Third Plaintiff

ATM & CPA Projects Pty Limited ACN 116 458 407

First Defendant

Tony Merhi

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether commission under the 1 December Agreement was payable to the plaintiffs
  2. 2 Whether the defendant Mr Merhi was personally a party to the contract
  3. 3 Whether the contract was abandoned

Ratio Decidendi

On proper construction, the 1 December Agreement entitled plaintiffs to commission only if they procured a sale and building contract within six weeks; since this did not occur, and the agreement was later abandoned, plaintiffs are not entitled to commission. Even if entitled, they were precluded by s 8 of the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act as they were not licensed real estate agents.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The proceedings be dismissed with costs.