Chalhoub v Astro Real Estate Holding Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] NSWCATAP 289

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Chalhoub v Astro Real Estate Holding Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] NSWCATAP 289 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 30 November 2018 Decision date: 30 November 2018 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: The Hon F Marks, Principal Member L Wilson, Senior Member Decision: The application for a costs order made by the respondent is dismissed. Catchwords: Appeal proceedings- Successful respondent sought costs order- Special circumstances not established-Costs order refused Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Cases Cited: Chalhoub v Astro Real Estate Holding Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP 217 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Costs Parties: Antoun Chalhoub (Appellant)

Astro Real Estate Holding Pty Ltd (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: A Chalhoub (Self Represented) (Appellant) Low Doherty & Stratford (Respondent) File Number(s): AP18/30187 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Citation: N/A Date of Decision: 19 June 2018 Before: S Smith General Member File Number(s): GEN 17/45779

reasons for decision

Background 1. In Chalhoub v Astro Real Estate Holding Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP 217 we dismissed an appeal brought by Antoun Chalhoub, as appellant from a decision of the Tribunal which had awarded the respondent to the appeal, Astro Real Estate Holding Pty Ltd, commission on the sale of a house. That house had been jointly owned by the appellant and his then wife. 2. The factual background to both the underlying and the appeal proceedings is fully set out in our decision dismissing the appeal. It is sufficient for present purposes to note that the circumstances in which the respondent claimed commission and was ultimately successful were somewhat unusual. The appellant had, through his own resources, found the persons who became the ultimate purchasers. The respondent real estate agent had initially negotiated an exclusive sales agreement which permitted it to claim commission if a sale was effected whether or not it introduced the ultimate purchasers to the property. That exclusive agency agreement had terminated at the time that the appellant located the purchasers. However, they did not proceed at that stage, but did contract to purchase the property after the respondent had secured an "extension" of the exclusive sales agreement. It was the evidence of the appellant that the principal of the respondent, a Mr Singh had studiously avoided informing him of the names of the ultimate purchasers and continued to present documents for him to sign with the names of the purchasers left blank. Ultimately the names of the purchasers were revealed to the solicitors acting for the appellant and his wife. 3. The appellant was at all times outraged at the prospect that he would be compelled to pay his share of the commission to the respondent agent when he himself had introduced the purchasers to the property. Despite this, however, the respondent was successful at first instance and again on appeal in obtaining an order against the appellant for the payment of the commission. The reasons are contained in our decision. 4. The respondent has now sought an order for costs against the appellant, and these reasons determine that application.