Outerbridge trading as Century 21 Plateau Lifestyle Real Estate v Hall [2019] NSWDC 724

Outerbridge trading as Century 21 Plateau Lifestyle Real Estate v Hall [2019] NSWDC 724

The plaintiffs were not the effective cause of the sale. While the plaintiffs (Mr Outerbridge) introduced the purchaser to the property and facilitated initial negotiations, the contract of sale was ultimately secured through the efforts of Ms Van Wijngaarden of Unique Estates, who clarified the vendors' position and negotiated the contract. Therefore, under the agency agreement, the plaintiffs were not entitled to commission. The co-agency/conjunction agreement was unenforceable due to lack of execution by all licensees as required by s 34(1) of the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 (NSW). Unique Estates, although unlicensed at the relevant time, was in fact the effective...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the defendants against the plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
['real Estate Commission' 'principal and Agent' 'agency Agreements' 'conjunction Agency' 'statutory Compliance for Agents' 'commission Entitlement' 'estoppel']
['contract Law' 'agency Law' 'property Law'] ['real Estate Commission' 'principal and Agent' 'agency Agreements' 'conjunction Agency' 'statutory Compliance for Agents' 'commission Entitlement' 'estoppel']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs as real estate agents were the effective cause of the sale and entitled to commission' 'Effect of agency and conjunction agreements between multiple agents' 'Effect of non-licensing by one agent on entitlement to commission' 'Whether co-agency/conjunction agreements are enforceable if not fully executed as per statutory requirements' 'Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from denying effect of the conjunction/co-agency agreement']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs were not the effective cause of the sale. While the plaintiffs (Mr Outerbridge) introduced the purchaser to the property and facilitated initial negotiations, the contract of sale was ultimately secured through the efforts of Ms Van Wijngaarden of Unique Estates, who clarified the vendors' position and negotiated the contract. Therefore, under the agency agreement, the plaintiffs were not entitled to commission. The co-agency/conjunction agreement was unenforceable due to lack of execution by all licensees as required by s 34(1) of the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 (NSW). Unique Estates, although unlicensed at the relevant time, was in fact the effective...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendants against the plaintiffs.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the defendants against the plaintiffs.' "The plaintiffs are to pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed." 'Liberty to the parties to apply within 14 days for a different costs order to that set out in order 2.' 'Exhibits to be returned in 28 days.']