Robert and Lynette Hancock v R V Parks Australia Ltd [2014] NSWCATCD 134

Robert and Lynette Hancock v R V Parks Australia Ltd [2014] NSWCATCD 134

The park management was found to be the effective cause of sale, as the purchasers responded to the park's advertising and were introduced by park management, triggering entitlement to commission under the parties' written agreement and the Act.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Robert Hancock; Applicant: Lynette Hancock; Respondent: R V Parks Australia Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Administrative Dispute / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Commission Disputes, Sale of Moveable Dwellings, Agent's Effective Cause, Assignment of Site Agreement
Contract Law Property Law Residential Parks Law Commission Disputes Sale of Moveable Dwellings Agent's Effective Cause Assignment of Site Agreement

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Hancock

Applicant

Lynette Hancock

Applicant

R V Parks Australia Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Administrative Dispute / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the park was the effective cause of sale for the purposes of commission entitlement
  2. 2 Whether commission was payable under the relevant agreement and the Residential Parks Act
  3. 3 Whether commission was payable before settlement

Ratio Decidendi

The park management was found to be the effective cause of sale, as the purchasers responded to the park's advertising and were introduced by park management, triggering entitlement to commission under the parties' written agreement and the Act.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed because the Tribunal is not satisfied that the grounds required to make the orders have been established.