Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2024
  4. Wilson v Key to Australia Pty Ltd - [2024] QCAT 227

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Wilson v Key to Australia Pty Ltd[2024] QCAT 227

Wilson v Key to Australia Pty Ltd[2024] QCAT 227

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Wilson v Key to Australia Pty Ltd [2024] QCAT 227

PARTIES:

Simon allan wilson

(applicant)

v

KEY TO AUSTRALIA (deregistered)

(first respondent)

graham mark scarrott (a bankrupt)

(second respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCL067-21

MATTER TYPE:

Other civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

28 March 2024

HEARING DATE:

6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 June 2023 and 7 and 8 March 2024.

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Poteri

ORDERS:

  1. Pursuant to s 105 of the Agents Financial Administration Act 2014 (Qld), the claim is allowed and the amount of $109,863.65 should be paid to the Applicant from the Claim Fund at the expiration of the appeal period as outlined in s 143 of Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 (Qld).
  2. The First Respondent and Second Respondent are jointly and severally liable for the losses of the Applicant.
  3. Pursuant to sections 105(3) and 116(3) of the Agents Financial Administration Act 2014 (Qld), the First Respondent and the Second Respondent are jointly and severally liable to reimburse the Claim Fund in the amount of $109,863.65.

CATCHWORDS:

Where a resident of New Zealand has invested in real estate in Australia – where the resident was induced to make this investment because of the false and or misleading representations of an Australian registered real estate agent – where the real estate agent is alleged to have disbursed funds without authorisation from the real estate agent’s trust account – where the scheme has failed – where the resident has made a claim against the Claim Fund under the provisions of the Agents Financial Administration Act 2014 (Qld) – where the claim has been referred to the Tribunal for a determination

Agents Financial Administration Act 2014 (Qld), 8, s 21, s 22, s 33, s 77, s 80, s 82, s 85, s 95, s 105, s 113, s 116

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 24

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 19, s 20, s 143

Planning Act 2016 (Qld), s 49

Property Occupations Act 2014 (Qld), s 12, s 26, s 97, s 154, s 155, s 206, s 207, s 208, s 209, s 212

Airstrike Industrial Pty Ltd v Robertson & Anor [2014] QCATA 43

Dunn v Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2012] QCAT 476.

Freehold Land Investments Ltd v Queensland Estates Pty Ltd (1970) 123 CLR 418

Goodchild v Ferrantino [2007] CCT PC020-06

To v Chief Executive, Department of Tourism [2006] QDC 381

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

 

Applicant:

Self-Represented

First Respondent:

Key to Australia Pty Ltd  No appearance

Second Respondent  

Graham Mark Scarrott No appearance

Office of Fair Trading   

Mr A Tan, Legal Officer of the Office of Fair Trading

GENERAL OVERVIEW

  1. [1]
    This is an overview of 17 claims made under the provisions of the Agents Financial Administration Act 2014 (Qld) (‘AFAA’) regarding the activities of the First Respondent, Key to Australia Pty Ltd (‘Key’), and the Second Respondent, Graham Mark Scarrott (‘Scarrott’).
  2. [2]
    I have consent of all the claimants to refer to the evidence and details of each of the   various claims in considering the individual claims.
  3. [3]
    The consideration of the claims should be viewed as a whole because all of the claims refer to the proposed purchase of some 20 lots at Pimpama. The lots were the subject of put and call option agreements (‘P&C’) with Eagle Street Finance Pty Ltd, Leda (‘Vendor’).
  4. [4]
    In all, Scarrott and Key were paid the total of approximately $2,380,000 by the claimants. Scarrott paid approximately $603,000 to the Vendor for deposits under the P&Cs. Approximately $72,000 was paid to the Gold Coast City Council (‘Council’) for application fees and approximately $33,000 was paid to the town planners, Zone Planning Group (‘ZPG’). It appears that Scarrott arranged for building plans to be drafted, at least for lots 280, 281, 282, 333, 334, and 335.Also he probably engaged other consultants. The Tribunal has not been informed of any other amounts that Scarrott may have paid to other consultants or contractors.
  5. [5]
    Scarrott and Key had at their disposal well in excess of $1,000,000. It is not clear how Scarrott and Key used these funds. However, it is clear that most of these funds were used without the implied or express authority of the claimants on personal expenses, company expenses and keeping the whole scheme going. That is, the funds were dishonestly and fraudulently used by Scarrott and Key.
  6. [6]
    The Tribunal has no investigation powers. These powers are exercised by the Chief Executive of the Office of Fair Trading (‘OFT’) under the AFAA.
  7. [7]
    The consideration of each claim was difficult and complicated because Scarrott and Key did not appear at the hearings. Scarrott did provide an unsworn statement which is very general, self-serving and is not corroborated. Further, Scarrott met each claimant on separate occasions and made slightly different promises to many of the claimants.
  8. [8]
    The claimants were ordinary everyday New Zealanders (except for one Australian claim) who trusted Scarrott. I found the claimants who gave oral evidence at the hearings to be entirely credible and honest. I found them to be extremely courteous and at times somewhat embarrassed by the way they were convinced by Scarrott to trust him.
  9. [9]
    In almost all cases there is no question that Scarrott did not provide the claimants with full details of his proposal. That is, he did not inform them of the possible shortcomings, disadvantages, and obstacles to overcome. He almost invariably told the claimants about the expected profit and gave them certainty without disclosing any downside to his scheme.
  10. [10]
    Scarrott’s plan was for the parties to enter P&Cs with the Vendor and pay a deposit to secure the purchase of a lot (or lots). Other monies were paid to Scarrott by the claimants so that Scarrott could obtain approval from the Council to subdivide the lot into 3 individual lots and obtain approval to erect 3 townhouses on the individual subdivided lots.
  11. [11]
    Scarrott arranged for ZPG to lodge applications with the Council to subdivide lots 280, 281, 282, 333, 334 and 335 in April 2019. No applications were lodged with Council to subdivide any other lots.
  12. [12]
    I presume the plan was to either on-sell the subdivided lots with approved plans or to erect the townhouses on the subdivided lots and to on-sell these subdivided improved lots. However, Scarrott did promise almost all the claimants that they would not have to invest any further funds in the scheme or would not have to become purchasers of the individual lots. It is not clear how this would work in practice from a legal or timing perspective and if bridging finance would be required.
  13. [13]
    It was all a question of timing and the Council approving the subdivision of the individual lots without the necessary setbacks and relaxation of on-street parking. In the end the Council took 10 months to assess and reject (i.e. not approve any relaxations in setback, open space and parking requirements) Scarrott’s application, financing became more difficult and the COVID epidemic made all commercial activities more complicated.
  14. [14]
    It is difficult to ascertain when Scarrott started using the funds for his personal and Key’s expenses and other financing expenses to keep the whole scheme going. It is probable that he was using the funds for Key’s and his personal expenses from the outset when he started receiving funds from the claimants. However, the Vendor became impatient and in 2020 the Vendor called upon the claimants to perform their obligations under the P&Cs and to pay the balance of the purchase prices under the P&Cs. Many of the claimants could not complete the purchases so their deposits were forfeited to the Vendor.
  15. [15]
    Ironically two claimants who had the resources to complete the purchase of a lot and retain the lot have seen a substantial increase in the value of their lot and thus they have not suffered a financial loss.

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [16]
    The Applicant, Simon Allan Wilson (‘Wilson’), was at all relevant times a resident of New Zealand.
  2. [17]
    Key was at all relevant times a corporation incorporated in Australia and had offices in Queensland.
  3. [18]
    Scarrott was at all relevant times a resident of Queensland and a director and the secretary of Key.
  4. [19]
    Between April and June 2019, Wilson met Scarrott in New Zealand to discuss a real estate scheme. Certain representations are alleged to have been made by Scarrott:
    1. A substantial profit could be made by investing in a real estate scheme regarding land which the Council had preapproved for subdivision.
    2. An initial investment of $110,000 was required from Wilson. A sum of $30,000 was required to be paid as a deposit to secure a block of land. Scarrott and Key would subdivide the land.
    3. Scarrott and Key would on-sell the subdivided lots for Wilson without the necessity of Wilson having to pay for the balance of the land purchase.
    4. The outcome for Wilson would be an estimated return of $200,000.
  5. [20]
    In May 2019 Wilson committed to the purchase of lot 499 Pimpama Village (‘Land’) based on the representations made by Scarrott.
  6. [21]
    On 14 June 2019 Wilson signed a P&C regarding the Land with the Vendor in the presence of Scarrott.
  7. [22]
    On 16 June 2019, Wilson remitted the sum of $109,000 to Key. The Vendor co-signed the P&C.
  8. [23]
    On 29 May 2020, Wilson’s lawyer emailed him advising that settlement of the P&C was due on 18 May 2020. On 29 May 2020, Wilson was informed that the Vendor was exercising its option on lot 499.
  9. [24]
    On 5 June 2020, Wilson’s lawyer advised Wilson that the arrangement with Scarrott was not going ahead and Scarrott may have misappropriated his funds.
  10. [25]
    It should be noted that although Wilson represented himself at the hearing of these proceedings, he was assisted by Mr Michael Lunjevich who advised the Tribunal that he was a lawyer in New Zealand.

LEGISLATION

  1. [26]
    For reference I outline the relevant legislative provisions of the AFAA and Property Occupations Act 2014 (Qld) (‘POA’):

Sections 6, 8, 21, 22, 33, 77, 80, 82, 84, 85, 95, 105, 113 and 116 of the AFAA.

Sections 12, 26, 97, 115, 154, 155, 206, 207, 208, 209, and 212 of the POA.

CLAIM

  1. [27]
    Pursuant to s 82 of the AFAA, Wilson lodged a claim (‘Claim’) on 22 September 2020 against the Claim Fund which is administered by the OFT. The Claim was made within the time stipulated in s 85 of the AFAA.
  2. [28]
    Pursuant to s 95 of AFAA the Claim has been referred (‘the Referral’) to the Tribunal on 31 August 2021 for determination.

REFERRAL

  1. [29]
    In the Referral the OFT has raised several issues that should be considered by the Tribunal.
  2. [30]
    The issues are:
    1. Jurisdiction. The AFAA is legislation enacted in Queensland. There is no specific provision in the AFAA which restricts claims to Queensland. However, for a claim to be successful, a claimant must demonstrate that there is a sufficient nexus to Queensland.
    2. Section 80 of the AFAA outlines the definition of a “relevant person” as being current and former licensed real estate agents. At the relevant time the OFT admit that Key and Scarrott held valid licenses.
    3. The OFT point out that Scarrott and Key may have been providing property development advice rather than acting as a real estate agent when Wilson entered the arrangements.
    4. A claim may be made under s 82 of AFAA if the claimant suffers financial loss because of a contravention of ss 21 and 22 of the AFAA. Sections 82(1)(a) and (b) of AFAA relate to payment of monies or permitted drawings from a trust account. In these proceedings Wilson paid approximately $110,000 into the trust account of Key. These monies were to be distributed by payment of approximately $30,000 deposit to the Vendor for securing the Land and the balance to Key to prosecute the scheme.
    5. Section 82(1)(g) of the AFAA states that a claimant may make a claim if there has been a contravention of s 212 of the POA by a relevant person. Section 212 of the POA provides that a licensee must not make representations relating to the sale of real property that are false or misleading. This issue relates to the ability of Scarrott/Key to subdivide the Land and/or whether Wilson would not be required to pay for the balance of the purchase price of the Land to the Vendor.

EVIDENCE

WILSON

  1. [31]
    Wilson provided a statement (‘Wilson’s Statement’) to the OFT dated 27 November 2020 which is exhibited on pages 10 to 14 of the Referral. This statement also annexes other relevant material. Wilson gave evidence at the hearings by Teams. At the hearings in June 2023 a Mr Duncan Garner (‘Garner’) also gave evidence for Wilson by Teams. Garner introduced Wilson to Scarrott.
  2. [32]
    Wilson met with Scarrott in April 2019 in New Zealand where Scarrott introduced himself as a financial advisor, licensed real estate agent, auctioneer and mortgage broker. He advised Wilson that he and Key had real estate agent’s licences.
  3. [33]
    Scarrott stated he had a project in Pimpama, Queensland where the local authority, the Council, had “preapproved” the subdivision of certain residential lots into 3 smaller lots which could be on-sold for a profit.
  4. [34]
    When Wilson questioned Scarrott about the rezoning, Scarrott advised him that he had become aware of the zoning change opportunity before other developers, and he had cherry picked the best sections.
  5. [35]
    Scarrott advised Wilson that he could expect a return of $200,000 with an investment of $110,000. Wilson was provided with a document which outlined how the return could be achieved on the investment. See annexure SWI to Wilson’s Statement. This document is headed “Spatial Homes and Development” which Scarrott described as the development arm of his business. In the figures Key was to be paid a fee of $30,000.
  6. [36]
    Scarrott advised Wilson that the fee of $30,000 would be paid when the deal was complete as commission.
  7. [37]
    Scarrott stated that the project was without risk because of “his” preapproval and “due diligence” with the Council and the developer. Wilson stated that Scarrott informed him that he would not have to settle on the Land or words to that effect. Scarrott never mentioned bridging finance to Wilson.
  8. [38]
    Scarrott informed Wilson that he had other parties lined up to purchase the packages and that he had been successful in the past in other areas of Pimpama in turning one section into three lots.
  9. [39]
    Wilson was assured that there would be no risk. Wilson advised Scarrott that he could not take any risks with his investments because he had a “marriage settlement” in June 2020 and money could not be jeopardised under any circumstances.
  10. [40]
    Wilson received a P&C from the Vendors, lawyers, HWL Ebsworth of Brisbane. This P&C, which is annexures SW2 and SW2A to Wilson’s Statement, was executed in the presence of Scarrott in New Zealand on 14 June 2019. Wilson says that he did not understand the contents of the P&C and the contents were not explained to him.
  11. [41]
    Wilson gave evidence that Scarrott gave him the impression that he had Council approval and that his funds would be kept in a separate account.
  12. [42]
    In paragraphs 21 to 23 of Wilson’s Statement, Wilson outlines the issues that concerned him when he was executing the P&C. That is:
    1. Scarrott informed him that he had nothing to fear with the “contract” which was 160 pages long, and the contents of the P&C were not reviewed.
    2. He had never heard of a P&C. He said that he thought that it was something like a sales and purchase agreement. He did not completely understand the P&C and Scarrott did not explain the details of the P&C to him.
    3. Wilson committed to the P&C for lot 499 on the basis of the Council approval to subdivide the lot into 3 lots. Wilson would never have to find the extra funds to complete the P&C and Wilson would be making $200,000 profit on the deal.
  13. [43]
    Wilson says in his Statement at paragraph 24 that on 16 June 2019 he paid $110,000 to Key by two transfers. One transfer was for $109,000 and a copy of the transfer note from ASB bank is annexure SW3 to Wilson’s Statement. It is not clear to me if the whole $110,000 was transferred in two transfers as noted in paragraph 24 of Wilson’s Statement or only the amount of $109,000 was transferred. A copy of the transfer acknowledgement of $1,000 has not been provided to the Tribunal. Further other material and submissions filed in the Tribunal refer to an amount of $109,000 having been transferred. Wilson agrees that the amount that he is claiming is $109,000.
  14. [44]
    The sum of $29,200 for the deposit was paid by Key to the Vendor pursuant to the P&C. See page 5 of the P&C. The P&C was executed by the Vendor and is dated 26 June 2019 – see page 17 of the Referral.
  15. [45]
    Annexed to Wilson’s Statement are copies of other communications between Wilson and other parties such as Geri Richardson of Key, Sharney Rowe of JMV Law who were acting as Wilson’s Lawyers, Scarrott and HWL Ebsworth lawyers for the Vendor.
  16. [46]
    Eventually in 2020 the Land was not able to be subdivided and on-sold and Wilson was called upon to complete the purchase of the Land. See Annexure SW7 to Wilson’s Statement. He was not able to complete the transaction and the deposit paid under the P&C was forfeited by the Vendor.
  17. [47]
    At paragraph 48 of Wilson’s Statement, he says that Scarrott confessed that he had used Wilson’s money on personal expenses and propping up his business.

SCARROTT AND KEY

  1. [48]
    Scarrott did not attend the hearing to give evidence and/or to be cross examined. He provided an unsworn statement (‘Scarrott’s Statement’) (pages 199 to 202 of the Referral). I have reservations about accepting the veracity and the accuracy of the assertions made by Scarrott in his Statement.
  2. [49]
    Key was not represented at the hearing and no material was filed by Key in these proceedings. Key has now been deregistered as a corporation.
  3. [50]
    Details of Scarrott’s activities are outlined on pages 1 to 26 in the Supplementary Document Bundle attached to the OFT’s submissions filed in the Tribunal on 17 March 2023. From this material Scarrott was convicted of offences under the Australian Consumer Law. Scarrott was not charged with or convicted of any offences under the POA.
  4. [51]
    I make the following findings in relation to Scarrott and Key:
    1. The Respondents and the Vendor appear to have no formal arrangements for any of the Respondents to market the Vendor’s land at Pimpama.
    2. The Respondents appear to have never formally acted or represented the Vendor. The Respondents did not have any authority from the Vendor to negotiate with any buyers of the Vendor’s land at Pimpama on behalf of the Vendor. See the comments relating to the “Developer” of annexure 3 of the supplementary bundle of documents filed with the OFT’s submissions filed in the Tribunal on 17 March 2017.
    3. Notwithstanding there were no formal arrangements for Scarrott to market lots of land at Pimpama for the Vendor, it is almost certain that the Vendor was aware of Scarrott’s activities and there would have been numerous interactions between Scarrott and the Vendor’s representatives in 2019 and 2020. After all, Scarrott had achieved the sale of approximately 20 lots of land for the Vendor.
    4. Scarrott had been marketing residential housing lots in the Gold Coast region and at Pimpama prior to 2018.
    5. All funds were paid to the business account of Key to Australia Pty Ltd trustee for the Scarrott Family Trust. Scarrott informed clients that this was a “trust account”.
    6. Scarrott arranged for ZPG to lodge a development application relating to lots 280, 281, 282, 333, 334 and 335 at Pimpama with the Council on 26 August 2019. See letter from ZPG to Tom Tate dated 23 April 2020 – page 216 of the Referral.
    7. No application for subdivision of lot 499 was lodged with the Council.
    8. In the criminal prosecution of Scarrott there were approximately 18 affected parties.
    9. Scarrott admitted to forging letters from the ANZ bank to buy time.
    10. Scarrott attempted to obtain finance with Latrobe Financial Ltd, but the valuations of the Land fell short of the valuations required by the financier.
    11. Scarrott would have been paid his fees from the sale of the subdivided land on settlement.
    12. Scarrott described himself as a sales consultant. I also note that on page 13 of the P&C (page 114 of the Referral), the page where Wilson executed the P&C, Scarrott has also executed the page next to the printed words “Sales Consultant”.
    13. Scarrott initially expected the subdivision approval process with the Council to take 3 to 4 months. This process took much longer than expected and eventually the Council rejected/approved Scarrott’s application with certain conditions which Scarrott/Key were not able to satisfy. David Ransom (‘Ransom’), director of ZPG, describes the response from Council as a “refusal”. The more accurate way of describing the actual situation is that the Council delayed in processing the application for subdivision and the Council would not agree to the subdivision with relaxation of the setback, open space and parking requirements.
    14. At one stage Scarrott approached the Vendor for Vendor finance to complete the contracts. The Vendor would agree to providing 50% Vendor finance with the balance to be provided from the funds to come from New Zealand. This was not practical.
    15. Admissions were made by Scarrott that he expended the funds by paying for the deposits of various New Zealand investors for the purchase of the land under other P&Cs, Key’s expenses, expenses relating to the Council application process and personal expenses.
    16. Ultimately the Council process took too long, Council rejected/approved the application with conditions, bank lending requirements became tighter, introduction of a foreign buyers’ surcharge was introduced into New Zealand, the COVID pandemic struck and New Zealand banking institutions were shut down for some weeks. Scarrott says that all these factors meant the doom of his proposals.

DUNCAN GARNER

  1. [52]
    Duncan Garner had previously undertaken some Australian real estate business with Scarrott. He gave evidence at the hearings in June 2023 and provided a written sworn statement dated 26 April 2022 which is Exhibit 2 to Wilson’s submissions filed in the Tribunal on 17 July 2023.
  2. [53]
    Garner says he knows Scarrott because Scarrott would advertise investment properties on Garner’s radio program. He introduced Wilson to Scarrott in April 2019 after he received a call from Scarrott regarding a new opportunity.
  3. [54]
    Garner says that he and Wilson had a telephone hook up with Scarrott on or about 4 April 2019 when Scarrott was in Australia. In this call Scarrott outlined the “full concept/idea” in detail. In this phone call Scarrott mentioned and was questioned about the “preapproval” and timelines. See Paragraph 7 of Garner’s statement. It was agreed at the meeting that Wilson would proceed with the offer.
  4. [55]
    Garner says that on 14 June 2019 he met with Wilson and Scarrott at his house to sign documents. He also states that he and Wilson had phone calls with Scarrott regarding commitment, access to funds and progress of the investment in the period between 14 April 2019 and 14 June 2019. See paragraph 9 of Garner’s statement.
  5. [56]
    I accept the evidence of Garner. I found him to be an honest and reliable witness.

DAVID RANSOM AND ZONE PLANNING GROUP

  1. [57]
    Ransom is a director of ZPG who are urban and regional planners.
  2. [58]
    Ransom has provided a sworn statement executed on 24 August 2020 which is on pages 206 to 346 of the Referral. Ransom has an urban and town planning degree from the University of New England. Annexed to this statement is a fee proposal, terms of engagement and some attached correspondence with the Council.
  3. [59]
    ZPG was engaged by Scarrott to assist him in obtaining planning approval for his development application. On 23 April 2019 ZPG provided advice to Scarrott regarding the proposed development approval. See annexure ZP1 of Ransom’s statement pages 206 to 346 of the Referral.
  4. [60]
    Scarrott accepted the fee proposal and terms of engagement of ZPG and commenced work on the development application. The application to the Council appears to have been lodged with the Council on 26 August 2019. See page 2 of the letter from ZPG to Tom Tate, the mayor of the Council, making complaints about the time taken to process the development application.
  5. [61]
    In the letter from ZPG to Key dated 23 April 2019 there is no mention of lot 499 in the letter. Lot 499 is not included in the application to Council lodged on 26 August 2019. Scarrott says that this was the case because he wanted to save costs and ZPG advised him that once the initial applications were approved then the other applications would be approved “as of right.” See Scarrott’s Statement.
  6. [62]
    The planning scheme that applies to the Land and the properties that were purchased by other New Zealand purchasers at Pimpama is the Gold Coast 2016 City Plan VS – page 210 of the Referral.
  7. [63]
    I note the advice of ZPG, in particular paragraph 3, dated 23 April 2019 given to Key and Scarrott (page 201 of the Referral). That is:

The proposed Dwelling Houses are also Code Assessable as they do not strictly conform with the acceptable outcomes of the Pimpama Village Residential Code… More specifically the dwellings will need to seek alternative outcomes in relation to boundary setbacks, site cover and communal open space.

Typically, applications of this nature will take Council in the order of 3 – 4 months to assess and decide…...

  1. [64]
    In Ransom’s statement he says that the Council assessment took much longer than anticipated and ultimately the application was refused (given approval with conditions unsatisfactory to Key/Scarrott) by the Council on 11 June 2020. According to Ransom this delay and refusal/approval with conditions was “completely wrong”.
  2. [65]
    Ransom says that ZPG has no knowledge of the details of Scarrott’s New Zealand sales scheme.
  3. [66]
    The Tribunal called Ransom to give oral evidence on 7 March 2024. His evidence was:
    1. “Preapproval” refers to preliminary approval in s 49 of the Planning Act 2016 (Qld). The preliminary approval refers to the approval in the material change of use Council reference MCU201500641 for Pimpama Village development area approved by the Council on 14 November 2016 (See page 209 of the Referral).
    2. Lots 280, 281, 282, 333, 334 and 335 are part of the Pimpama Village development area.
    3. If an owner intends to subdivide a lot and build on the subdivided lots in the Pimpama Village development area and the proposed subdivision and buildings do not strictly comply with the Pimpama Village Planning Scheme (as contained in MCU201500641) then an application to Council to seek relaxation of the conditions under the preliminary approval is required.
    4. This is what occurred in respect to the applications to Council for lots 2850, 281, 282, 333, 334 and 335. There was no preliminary approval (pre-approval to subdivide and build the townhouses as proposed by Scarrott)) for these lots or any of the other lots in Pimpama being marketed by Scarrott.
    5. The applications to Council are usually straight forward because they do not require advertising and no third party has rights to object.
    6. Ransom never had a pre-lodgement meeting or any discussions with Council or Council officers before the actual applications were lodged.
    7. Ransom was confident that the applications would succeed as there were similar developments at Southport and Varsity Lakes on the Gold Coast where the Council approved the developments with relaxed setbacks, open space and parking requirements.
    8. Ransom acknowledged that there is no certainty of outcomes when making such applications with Council.
    9. Ransom also acknowledged that if the subdivision of any other lots at Pimpama was required then further applications to Council were required to be lodged and assessed by Council. There is no “as of right” procedure available whereby the other lots would be automatically approved (with relaxed setbacks, open space and parking) if the applications for subdivision of lots 280, 281, 282, 333, 334 and 335 were approved. A different opinion of this issue is outlined by Scarrott in Scarrott’s Statement.
    10. Ransom did discuss other consultants and contractors with Scarrott but he had no direct dealings with these consultants and contractors and he is not aware how much Scarrott paid them.
    11. He provided payment details to the Tribunal after giving evidence. ZPG were paid a total of $33,000 by Scarrott.

JURISDICTION

  1. [67]
    The OFT has raised the issue of jurisdiction of the AFAA. There are no specific provisions in the AFAA which expressly limits the operations of the legislation to activities that take place in Queensland. Therefore, I must look to the caselaw to decide this issue.
  2. [68]
    The High Court decision of Freehold Land Investments Ltd v Queensland Estates Pty Ltd (1970) 123 CLR 418 (‘Freehold’) is instructive. Freehold involved a claim for commission where negotiations for a contract for the sale of land occurred inside and outside of Queensland. The court in Freehold examined the provisions for the Auctioneers, Real Estate Agents, Debt Collectors and Motor Dealers Act 1922 to 1961 (Qld). This legislation is similar to the legislation in the AFAA.
  3. [69]
    In Freehold the court held that the activities occurred in Queensland. However, the court at page 425 stated:

The Act clearly enough is not concerned with what is done outside Queensland, even if it be done in accordance with a contract the proper law of which is the law of Queensland. On the other hand, whatever may be the proper law of an agency contract, the Act applies to a person who acts as, or carries on the business, of a real estate agent in Queensland and a Queensland court would give effect to it. It is not, therefore, possible to support the conclusion which his Honour reached on the ground upon which his Honour based it.

The critical question is rather, did the claimant, in doing what it did pursuant to its agency contract with the owner, act as, or carry on the business of a real estate agent in Queensland? The circumstances here are such that unless the claimant acted as a real estate agent in Queensland in the transaction with which we are concerned it did not carry on business as a real estate agent in Queensland, so that the question can be narrowed down to whether or not, in the course of the negotiation of the sale from Queensland Estates Pty Ltd to Golden Acres Ltd, it acted as a real estate agent in Queensland.

  1. [70]
    The matter of Goodchild v Ferrantino [2007] CCT PC020-06 (‘Goodchild’) involved a claim under the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) (‘PAMD Act’) for certain fraudulent activities that occurred in Queensland. In Goodchild the land was situated in New South Wales, but as all the activities occurred in Queensland the claim was allowed, notwithstanding the fact that the land was outside of Queensland. In Goodchild the Tribunal noted that one of the objects of the PAMD Act was the protection of consumers. The main object of the AFAA is “to protect consumers from financial loss in dealing with agents”. The analysis of the law in Goodchild is relevant to the facts and circumstances in these proceedings.
  2. [71]
    I conclude that the protection given to claimants under the provisions of the AFAA is restricted to cases where the activities take place in or predominantly in Queensland.
  3. [72]
    In these proceedings the following facts apply:
    1. The Land is in Queensland.
    2. Scarrott and Key are licenced and have offices in Queensland.
    3. The Vendor operates in Queensland.
    4. Wilson paid monies into the bank account of Key which is situated in Queensland.
    5. Although Scarrott met with Wilson and Garner in New Zealand, there were phone calls between Scarrott (in Queensland) and Garner (in New Zealand) regarding the investment after Scarrott met with Wilson and Garner in April 2019.
  4. [73]
    By taking the above facts into account I find that the activities of Scarrott/Key took place predominantly in Queensland and the provisions of the AFAA apply to the Claim. As far as the issue of jurisdiction is concerned the Claim is valid.

REPRESENTATIONS OF SCARROTT

  1. [74]
    The OFT have outlined 6 representations made by Scarrott to Wilson in 2019 in paragraph 2 of the OFT’s submissions filed on 17 March 2023. The OFT have submitted that these representations are central to the Claim and the answers to these representations were the subject of cross-examination by Mr Tan of the OFT. Mr Tan’s cross examination of the witnesses mainly centred of the alleged representations.
  2. [75]
    I will now comment on these representations.
  3. [76]
    “The Respondents discovered land parcels in Pimpama Village Queensland that can be configured into smaller lots” (‘Representation 1’). Wilson answered “yes” when asked about Representation 1. There is sufficient evidence before me for me to find that Representation 1 made by Scarrott was true.
  4. [77]
    “The GC Council had “preapproved” this land being reconfigured” (‘Representation 2’). Wilson answered “yes” when cross-examined about Representation 2. On the evidence before me I find that when Scarrott made Representation 2 in early 2019 that Representation 2 was false and/or misleading or Scarrott should have been aware that it was false and/or misleading.
  5. [78]
    From April 2023 to June 2023 when Wilson executed the P&C and deposited $109,000 into the bank account of Key, Scarrott had the benefit of advice from Ransom and ZPG. Paragraph 5 of Ransom’s statement made on 24 August 2020 (page 206 of the Referral) outlines what is required to achieve formal Council approval for the subdivision. That is, the proposed subdivision and approval of the construction of the dwelling houses were code assessable and required a material change of use application as they did not strictly confirm with the code. The application for Council approval was lodged on 26 August 2019. See the letter from ZPG to Tom Tate – exhibit ZP3 to Ransom’s statement (page 217 of the Referral). The application was ultimately rejected/approved without the requested relaxation of certain requirements by the Council on 11 June 2020. That is some 10 months after the application was lodged with Council.
  6. [79]
    The application to the Council dated 26 August 2019 included subdivision of 6 existing lots. Lot 499 was not included in the application to the Council. Scarrott says that this was to save costs and Zone had advised him that once the other applications were approved then the other subdivision developments would be approved “as of right” by the Council. See page 2 of Scarrott’s Statement.
  7. [80]
    In paragraph 8 of Wilson’s statement, he says that Scarrott advised him that the Council had “preapproved” the subdividing of residential lots. The use of the word “preapproval” to me means that there must be some certainty about the outcome. That is, Scarrott and/or ZPG had received some indication either formally or informally that an application would be successful or likely to succeed and the conditions of any Council approval would be favourable to Scarrott. There is no evidence before me of the Council giving any such indication.
  8. [81]
    Under the preapproval, the Land could be subdivided into 3 smaller lots and townhouses could be erected on the subdivided lots. To undertake the subdivision of a lot and not encounter any difficulties in the process would require strict adherence to conditions set out in the Pimpama Village Residential Code (‘Code’). At all relevant times Scarrott was intending to seek relaxations from the Council regarding setbacks, open space and parking. None of the details about seeking relaxations from the Council in the subdivision of any of the lots were disclosed to Wilson or Garner.
  9. [82]
    I note the evidence outlined in paragraph 7 of the statement of Garner dated 26 April 2022 (Exhibit 2 to the submissions of Wilson filed in the Tribunal on 27 April 2022). Garner says, “I recall Simon quizzed Mark repeatedly around the “pre-approval” aspect of the project, with Mark reassuring us that he had contacts within the Planning team at Council who affirmed this, and he had also confirmed this with the Developer”. This indicates to me that Scarrott did not have any formal approvals or consents in place but only an indication of what would probably occur if an application was lodged with the Council. Of course Scarrott had the advice from ZPG that the prospects of Council approval were very good. However, nothing more than probable. No evidence was presented to the Tribunal to expand on or to outline what was said to Scarrott by his contacts in the Council or the representatives of Vendor.
  10. [83]
    It is noted in giving evidence Ransom stated that the pre-approval of Council applies to a much larger area in Pimpama referred to the Pimpama Village development area as a whole and there was no “pre-approval” to subdivide lot 499 with the building plans proposed by Scarrott.
  11. [84]
    Wilson and Garner both say that Scarrott never used any language which in any way qualified the issue of the ability to subdivide the Property. For example, stating that the subdivision of the Land was subject to a Council application process. They say that Scarrott always gave them the impression that the pre-approval applied to the Land.
  12. [85]
    Ransom outlines in paragraph 5 of his Statement the advice that he gave to Scarrott by way of a letter to Scarrott dated 23 April 2019. In this advice Ransom states that the proposed dwelling houses do not strictly conform to the relevant code and an application process to Council was required for a formal approval and this process may take 3 to 4 months.
  13. [86]
    As events transpired the opposite occurred. The Council took much longer to assess the application and it was ultimately rejected/approved without the requested relaxations, notwithstanding the complaints from ZPG.
  14. [87]
    ZPG says that the Council were unreasonable in their assessment of the application and the Council was “completely wrong” to refuse the application or approve the application with conditions. However, in the relevant timeframes (i.e. April 2019 to June 2019) no one, except the Council, could give any certainty to any proposed application. As it transpired the delay by Council in assessing the application(s) and ultimate refusal/approval without the requested relaxations was the principal reason why Scarrott’s plan failed.
  15. [88]
    The OFT have raised the issue of whether s 24 of the Criminal Code of Queensland (‘Criminal Code’) would be available to Key and Scarrott if either was charged with a criminal offence under the POA or other legislation. The OFT have cited the decisions of To v Chief Executive, Department of Tourism [2006] QDC 381 at paragraphs 40 to 45 and Dunn v Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2012] QCAT 476 at paragraph 11 as precedents for their submissions.
  16. [89]
    I accept the OFT’s submission on the application of s 24 of the Criminal Code. However, the defence under s 24 of the Criminal Code must be “an honest and reasonable, but mistaken belief in the existence of any state of things”. In these proceedings, this belief related to the “preapproval” by the Council to the subdivision of various lots, including lot 499, into three lots and the construction of 3 townhouses (with relaxed setbacks, site coverage and communal open space) on the 3 subdivided lots. Scarrott relied on the advice of ZPG/Ransom and his own enquiries that Council approval was code assessable, and a material change of use application would result in an approval, with conditions favourable to Scarrott, in 3 to 4 months. No reasonable person could describe this as an approval by Council or a certainty to be approved by Council. There is no evidence before me that the Council provided any indication to any stakeholder that such an application would be successful.
  17. [90]
    Further, Scarrott always knew or should have known that the pre-approval for the lots only referred to the Code for the Pimpama Village development area as a whole. The preapproval did not apply to the relaxation of having to strictly comply with the Code regarding the lots that he was marketing. No reasonable person could describe the Council approving the relaxation of the Code as a certainty, notwithstanding the confidence of ZPG. There are always risks, in timing and outcomes, when making applications to Council. Both these issues were not disclosed to Wilson or Garner.
  18. [91]
    Therefore, s 24 of the Criminal Code would not be a defence if Key or Scarrott were charged with any criminal offence.
  19. [92]
    It is my view that using the phrase “preapproval” conveys the notion that there is certainty. Given the advice of ZPG and his general knowledge as a licenced real estate agent of how Council applications are assessed, Scarrott was misleading Wilson that there was certainty with Council approval.
  20. [93]
    Wilson gave evidence that he would never have proceeded with the P&C and the further payment to Scarrott and Key if was made aware that there was no preapproval for the lot that he was purchasing and an application to Council was required to subdivide the lot.
  21. [94]
    Representation 3 – “the Respondents planned to reconfigure this land and on-sell the smaller lots to generate substantial profit for investors”. Wilson accepted that this representation was made. On the evidence before me I accept that Scarrott and Key fully intended to carry out this proposal. ZPG was retained and the formal applications to Council for certain lots, but not for lot 499, were lodged on 26 August 2019.
  22. [95]
    On the evidence before me Scarrott never fully explained or disclosed the whole process that was planned. Scarrott chose his words carefully and was vague in the way he explained the scheme and processes to Wilson and Garner. On the evidence before me Scarrott never used words such as “we will have to make an application to Council to seek relaxation of boundary setbacks, site cover and communal open space”. In my view Scarrott always gave the impression to Wilson that he already had this “approval”. If he had fully explained the processes involved in making the application to the Council, then Wilson would have chosen not to participate in the scheme.
  23. [96]
    A representation that is false and/or misleading can be either an expressed representation or can be in the form of silence or non-disclosure of a very relevant fact or what was within the knowledge of Scarrott. This principle was discussed in the matter of Airstrike Industrial Pty Ltd v Robertson [2014] QCATA 43. At paragraph 30 of the decision the Learned Members refer to a misrepresentation by silence. They say: “for there to be a representation by silence the representee must establish that there was some relevant fact or matter within the knowledge of the representor and the representor chooses not to disclose the fact or matter to create a false impression”.
  24. [97]
    In these proceedings Scarrott knew from the advice of Ransom about the requirement of an application to Council to seek relaxations and the possible time for Council to process such an application. Scarrott had knowledge of these issues and chose not to disclose this information to Wilson or Garner. To disclose this information would detract from the certainty that he was representing to Wilson and Garner.
  25. [98]
    Representation 4 – “the Applicant could participate in this scheme by – securing an option to purchase Pimpama Village land by signing a Put and Call Option Agreement and investing $109,000 with the Respondents”. Wilson agreed that this representation was made to him. The evidence before me confirms that Representation 4 was made by Scarrott to Wilson.
  26. [99]
    Representation 5 – “the Applicant would not have to complete his purchase because the Respondents would complete the Scheme beforehand”. Wilson agreed that this representation was made. Given the facts and circumstances of these proceedings it is apparent that a P&C was mentioned at the first meeting between Scarrott and Wilson. This is confirmed by the feasibility outline (Exhibit SW1 to Wilson’s Statement) where there is a reference to a P&C.
  27. [100]
    If the P&C is relied on by the Vendor, it is not legally correct that he would not have to complete his purchase. The representation that should have been made was that Wilson would not have to invest/provide further funds and the proceeds of the further sale would cover the initial cost of the land. There is also the evidence that Scarrott was attempting to obtain extensions/Vendor finance from the Vendor, bridging finance with LaTrobe Financial, and he apparently made a finance application with ANZ bank without Wilson’s knowledge. These actions are contrary to the notion that Wilson would not have to purchase Property or provide further funds for the purchase if the Vendor called on Wilson under the P&C.
  28. [101]
    It seems to me that bridging/Vendor finance was an important part of Scarrott’s plans. If bridging/Vendor finance was not obtained then he probably did not have sufficient funds or time to complete the approval process, erect the townhouses and market the subdivided lots with completed townhouses for sale. Even if the subdivided lots were to be on-sold with subdivision and townhouse approvals, this process would also have taken some time to complete thus requiring some type of bridging/Vendor finance, especially as the evidence shows that the Vendor was becoming impatient.
  29. [102]
    Therefore, I find that this representation was false and/or misleading.
  30. [103]
    Representation 6 – “the Scheme posed no real risk because the Respondents were confident it would succeed”. On the evidence before me and the advice from Ransom/ZPG that if there were no delays in marketing and in obtaining Council approval then it is reasonable to expect that this representation is true. However, at the time that the representation was made the future of the scheme was not without its many risks and obstacles. For example, there was always the risk that the Council application process would be delayed or that conditions would be imposed by the Council that Scarrott could not or would not be willing to satisfy.
  31. [104]
    Another issue in this this matter is that lot 499, the Land, was not included in the application to Council lodged by ZPG.
  32. [105]
    If everything had fallen into place, in terms of time and Council approval as planned by Scarrott, then Wilson may have been able to on-sell his interest in the Land at a profit when the Vendor called upon Wilson to complete the P&C. It seems to me that Scarrott was too optimistic and/or unrealistic in the view that every cog in the process would go smoothly. Scarrott never informed Wilson about any potential problems or delays. Also, there was never any mention to Wilson or Garner of the possibility of requiring bridging/Vendor finance. Ransom stated in his evidence that there is no certainty when dealing with applications to Council.
  33. [106]
    It is my view that the failure of Scarrott to fully inform Wilson and to omit details of the processes required was false and/or misleading. Therefore, the Representation 6 was false and misleading.
  34. [107]
    As a matter of clarification in my findings I refer to the conduct of Scarrott and the representations made by Scarrott to Wilson. The same conduct and representations apply to Key as Scarrott was the director and secretary of Key.
  35. [108]
    A general observation of Wilson and the other New Zealand investors who made claims is that Scarrott gained their trust and it was clear from the evidence that Scarrott played on this trust and their lack of knowledge of Queensland legal processes relating to the purchase and subdivision of real property.

CLAIM AGAINST FUND

  1. [109]
    To succeed in his claim Wilson must comply with s 82 of the AFAA. The provisions that may apply to Wilson’s claim are ss 82(1)(a), (b) and (g). In s 80 there is a definition of “relevant person”. At all relevant times Scarrott and Key were “agents”.
  2. [110]
    What is an “agent”? The relevant sections are ss 8, 33, 41 and 80 of the AFAA. Pursuant to these provisions Scarrott and Key were “agents” regarding the relevant provisions of the AFAA.
  3. [111]
    Section 16 of the POA outlines who is a “real estate agent” and in s 16 of the POA there is a reference to s 26 of the POA, which outlines the activities that the holder of a real estate agent licence is authorised to undertake as an agent for others. The OFT have raised the issue that Scarrott may not have been carrying out the activities of a real estate agent when he was prosecuting his scheme: that he was acting as a property developer or giving advice as a property developer.
  4. [112]
    Section 26 of the POA states:
  1. A real estate licence authorises the holder of the licence to perform the following activities an agent for others for reward-
    1. (a)
      To buy, sell (other than by auction), exchange or let real estate property or interests in real estate:
    2. (b)
      …
    3. (c)
      To negotiate for the buying, selling, exchanging or letting of something mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b);
    4. (d)
      …
  1. [113]
    I find that the activities that Scarrott was undertaking for all the parties that have made a claim against the Claim Fund falls squarely in the activities that are outlined in ss 26(1)(a) and (c) of the POA.
  2. [114]
    Has Scarrott complied with s 82(1)(a) and (b) of the AFAA? Notwithstanding the issue of any false and misleading representations made by Scarrott I am of the view that only some of the monies paid to Scarrott and Key were disbursed in accordance with the parties’ understanding of how the scheme was to operate. That is, the deposit of $29,200 for the deposit under the P&C was certainly paid in accordance with Wilson’s express authority. However, the other funds were to be used to prosecute the application to the Council to subdivide the Land, and Scarrott has admitted using the funds deposited in the Key account to pay deposits for other NZ investors and for his and Key’s personal expenses. Scarrott informed Wilson that he would be paid his fee of $30,000 when the subdivided lots were on-sold.
  3. [115]
    As previously mentioned no actual application was lodged with the Council by Scarrott or ZPG to obtain approval to subdivide lot 499. The application lodged by ZPG was for a material change of use and to reconfigure lots 260, 261, 226, 333, 334 and 335. I am of the view that there was no authority for Scarrott to disperse the monies when no application was lodged by ZPG for lot 499. Scarrott had informed Wilson (and Garner) that he would retain the money in a separate account, and he also informed them that he was looking for other investors.
  4. [116]
    It is difficult to determine the full details of the express and implied authority that Scarrott was to hold the monies on behalf of Wilson for the payment of expenses to progress the Council applications from the conversations and correspondence between Wilson and Scarrott/Key. Also, the details of payments to other consultants and contractors (if any) have not been produced to the Tribunal to ascertain how much was paid to these parties. Notwithstanding this lack of clarity, I find that there was an express/implied authority that Scarrott was to hold Wilson’s funds in trust and only disperse the funds for the deposit for the P&C and to prosecute the Council application to subdivide lot 499, not for other expenses or Scarrott/Key’s fee. Scarrott agreed with Wilson that he would be paid his fee at the end of the project when the subdivided lots were sold. Therefore, I find that Scarrott/Key have breached s 82(1)(a) and (b) of the AFAA.
  5. [117]
    The only way to determine exactly when and how much Scarrott and Key disbursed from their account without implied or express authority would be for an accountant to forensically examine the bank accounts of Scarrott and Key. I do not have these details. Given the amount of money available to Scarrott, the lack of progress in prosecuting the applications to Council on many of the lots, his admissions that he was dishonest and the criminal prosecutions, I have little doubt that the results of such a forensic examination would reveal that Scarrott commenced using the funds from a very early stage and without authority.
  6. [118]
    Did Scarrott contravene s 82(1)(g) of the AFAA? To determine this question, it is necessary to consider whether there have been any contraventions of ss 154, 155, 206, 207, 208, 209 and 212 of the POA.
  7. [119]
    Section 80 of the AFAA contains the definition of “relevant person”. At all relevant time Scarrott were relevant persons because they were “agents”.

COMPLIANCE

  1. [120]
    It is not clear if Scarrott/Key had an actual trust account. It seems to me that Wilson assumed that the funds that he transmitted to Key were to be paid into a trust account. The international money transfer (page 176 of the Referral) dated 16 June 2019 refers to the “Key to Australia Trust Account”. It is not necessary for me to establish if Scarrott/Key established a trust account under Part 2 of AFAA.
  2. [121]
    It is sufficient for me to say that Wilson paid the funds to Key.
  3. [122]
    It is noted that Scarrott was not charged with or convicted of any contravention of the AFAA or the POA. He was charged with and pleaded guilty of contraventions of the Australian Consumer Law.
  4. [123]
    On balance Scarrott has contravened ss 21, 22 and 82(1)(a) and (b) of the AFAA.
  5. [124]
    Sections 154 and 155 of the POA refer to disclosure of a beneficial interest. These provisions do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the Claim.
  6. [125]
    The provisions of ss 206, 207, 208 and 209 do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the Claim.
  7. [126]
    On balance, the facts and circumstances of the Claim that relate to Scarrott making false and misleading representations about a scheme that induced Wilson to enter the P&C are a breach of s 212 of the AFAA. This scenario fits squarely into s 212 of the POA. Therefore, I find that Scarrott has contravened s 82(1)(g) of the AFAA.

OBJECTS OF THE AFAA AND POA

  1. [127]
    The main object of the AFAA is set out in s 6 of the AFAA. In summary, the object is to protect consumers from financial loss in dealings with agents and this is to be achieved by regulating the ways agents operate trust accounts and establishing a claim fund to compensate persons in particular circumstances for financial loss arising from dealings with agents.
  2. [128]
    The main objects of the POA are set out in s 12 of the POA. In summary, one of these objects is to provide a system of licencing of property which balances between the need to protect consumers and promote freedom of enterprise in the marketplace. Another object is to provide a way of protecting consumers against particular undesirable practices associated with the promotion of residential property.
  3. [129]
    In essence the objects of both pieces of legislation are to provide for a system of licencing agents and to protect consumers.
  4. [130]
    If there are any inconsistencies or ambiguity in the facts, circumstances and interpretation of relevant legislation in these proceedings then given the objects of the legislation are squarely aimed at consumer protection, then any such inconsistencies and ambiguities should be exercised in the claimant’s favour.

FINDINGS

  1. [131]
    On the balance of probabilities, in their dealings with Wilson regarding lot 499, I find as follows:
    1. Key and Scarrott have not complied with ss 82(1)(a), (b) and (g) of the AFAA.
    2. Key and Scarrott were “relevant persons” and “licenced agents” as contemplated in the provisions of the AFAA and POA, in particular s 80 of the AFAA.
    3. Key and Scarrott were carrying out the activities of real estate agents as outlined in ss 26(1)(a) and (c) of the POA. That is, facilitating/negotiating the purchase and sale of interests in real property.
    4. Wilson has lodged a valid claim pursuant to s 82 of AFAA.
    5. Wilson has suffered a financial loss.
    6. Key and Scarrott are responsible for the financial losses of Wilson.
    7. Wilson cannot claim any capital losses and interest. See s 113(5) of the AFAA.
    8. The limit for any claim is $200,000. See s 113 (4) of the AFAA and regulation 25 of the Agents Financial Administration Regulation 2014 (Qld).
    9. Wilson has made a claim for $109,000 and legal fees of $865.35. I allow these claims. Wilson has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate any loss of opportunity and other financial losses. Therefore, I allow the amount of $109,865.35 for Wilson’s claim.
    10. Scarrott and Key are jointly and severally responsible for Wilson’s financial losses.
    11. Pursuant to s 116(3) of the AFAA, Scarrott and Key are jointly and severally liable to reimburse the Claim Fund in the amount of $109,865.35.
Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Wilson v Key to Australia Pty Ltd

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Wilson v Key to Australia Pty Ltd

  • MNC:

    [2024] QCAT 227

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Poteri

  • Date:

    28 Mar 2024

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Airstrike Industrial Pty Ltd v Robertson [2014] QCATA 43
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] QCATA 43
Cite 2 - [2014] QCATA 43
Dunn v Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2012] QCAT 476
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QCAT 476
Cite 2 - [2012] QCAT 476
Freehold Land Investments Ltd v Queensland Estates Pty Ltd (1970) 123 C.L.R 418
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1970) 123 C.L.R 418
Cite 2 - (1970) 123 C.L.R 418
Goodchild v Ferrantino [2007] CCT PC 20
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2007] CCT PC 20
Cite 2 - [2007] CCT PC 20
To v Chief Executive, Department of Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development [2006] QDC 381
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2006] QDC 381
Cite 2 - [2006] QDC 381

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.