Sultana Investments P/L v Cellcom P/L

[2008] QCA 357

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Contract
2. › Construction and interpretation
3. › Meaning of 'sold'
4. › Whether property 'sold' upon exchange of unconditional contracts or only upon completion
5. › Staged payment provisions
6. › Whether first instalment earned upon contract becoming unconditional
1. Professions and Trades
2. › Real estate agents
3. › Licensing
4. › Unlicensed activity
5. › Whether financial planner marketing apartments to investor clients acted as real estate agent
6. › Whether activities had sufficient nexus with Queensland
7. › Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld), ss 128, 133, 140
1. Estoppel
2. › Estoppel in pais
3. › Estoppel against statute
4. › Whether estoppel may defeat statutory prohibition on recovering fees for unlicensed real estate activity
5. › Whether prohibition imposed in public interest
6. › Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld), s 140

Quick Take

A person who markets residential property to investor clients for a fee, even in the course of providing financial planning services, acts as a real estate agent under PAMDA and must hold a licence to recover fees. Section 140 of PAMDA is a public interest provision against which estoppel cannot be raised, even where the developer drafted the agreement and assured compliance with Queensland law. Activities performed partly interstate have a sufficient nexus with Queensland where contracts are completed in Queensland and the agent arranges client inspections there.