1. The respondent's case is summarised as follows:
2. He confirmed that he met with the applicant and his son to discuss a development of the applicant's property. There was no agreement between them that he would obtain finance for the project or that any amounts owing were to be paid once the property was sold.
3. He told the Tribunal that he had completed 98 per cent of the work to lodge plans with council and produced two architectural drawings that were signed by the applicant.
4. He told the Tribunal that the last time he met the applicant and his son was on 28 October 2014 and he was ready to lodge plans with the council. He was not told by the applicant or his son to stop any work. He was told to hold onto the plans and documentation.
5. He confirmed that the plans were not lodged with the council because the applicant has not paid any monies owing. He said it was part of the contract that the applicant had to pay money before anything was lodged.
6. On cross-examination by the applicant, he denied that he told the applicant or his son that they did not have to pay any money. He said he was told by the applicant to go ahead with town planning application. He told the Tribunal that there was a discussion with the applicant about whether he had money for town planning and was told that he did and to go ahead with the work.
7. He confirmed that he did have a discussion with the applicant's finance advisor but he was not asked for any documents. He denied that he was to arrange finance or an offset loan for the applicant.

1. The applicant must prove his case on the balance of probabilities.
2. Is it more probable than not that the agreement occurred as described by the applicant? Barwick CJ in Reifek v McElroy [1965] HCA 46; (1965) 112 CLR 517 at 521-2 said that:-

"The standard of proof to be applied in a case and the relationship between the degree of persuasion of the mind according to the balance of probabilities and the gravity or otherwise of the fact of whose existence the mind is to be persuaded are not to be confused. The difference between the criminal standard of proof and the civil standard of proof is no mere matter of words; it is a matter of critical substance. No matter how grave the fact which is to be found in a civil case, the mind has only to be reasonably satisfied and has not with respect to any matter in issue in such proceeding to obtain that degree of certainty which is indispensable to the support of a conviction upon a criminal charge."

1. The applicant has the burden of proof and to be successful he must demonstrate that the facts on which he relies to establish that his claims that he was promised that the respondent would arrange for finance for the project and that he would not be liable for payment until the development was sold or finance could be obtained.
2. The applicant claims that there was an oral agreement that the respondent would arrange or facilitate finance. The respondent disputes this. The agreement signed by the parties is clear in that it is an agreement about a proposed development at 75 Kanooka Grove Clayton. It is a fee proposal to provide planning and building documentation and clearly sets out the work to be done and the payments required at each stage.
3. The applicant at a meeting in November 2014 signed the drawings.
4. The project did not progress further because there were outstanding accounts.
5. The Tribunal finds that applicant and respondent are parties to a written agreement for the respondent to provide plans to develop the applicant's property. This is evidenced by the written agreement signed on 9 July 2014 and payment by the applicant to the respondent of $9400.
6. The respondent's architect completed two sets of drawings that were signed by the applicant on or about 28 November 2014.
7. The difficulty that the applicant faces is that there is no written agreement that the respondent would arrange finance for the project. While I accept the evidence of both parties that there were ongoing discussions about the project, there is conflicting evidence on whether there was an oral agreement for the respondent to arrange the finance.
8. Both parties gave conflicting evidence about oral discussion. The applicant contends that the respondent has said he would arrange or knew someone who could arrange finance and the respondent told the Tribunal that he did not give any such guarantee or that he would arrange the finance for the project. He said it was up to the applicant to do so.
9. The applicant's son said that he had contacted a friend (a finance broker) to advise him on financing the project but the respondent did not supply the information to him and that is why the project did not progress.
10. He said that it was only after the respondent sought more money and after the plans had been signed that the applicant and his son told the respondent they did not wish for him to continue. I accept that the applicant sought advice from a finance broker on the funding of the project and it was clear on the evidence before me that it was the applicant who sought the finance for the project. On balance I am not satisfied that there was an oral agreement between the parties for a 'joint venture' or that the agreement was conditional on the respondent being able to find finance or introduce someone to the applicant to finance the project.
11. The applicant paid the respondent the sum of $9400.00 but sought an order for the refund of $7000.00. The balance of $2400.00 was not sought because the money was used to pay a surveyor. This is contradictory; in effect the applicant acknowledged that he is liable for the payment to the respondent for the surveyor but is not liable for the rest of the money he paid the respondent. While it is up to the applicant to seek any amount from the Tribunal, I need to consider his assertion that he should be refunded part of the money he paid to the respondent and yet consider himself liable for the remainder, even though the money paid relate to the same written contract and as he asserts the reassurance by the respondent to arrange finance.
12. The respondent says that the sum of $8700 (plus GST) is outstanding for drawings and other work. Two architectural drawings were completed and they were not submitted to local government for approval because of the outstanding amount. The respondent did not lodge a counterclaim.
13. I accept that the respondent was entitled to retain the drawings given that there was an outstanding invoice and that the applicant had terminated their agreement at the meeting in November 2014. I note that the applicant approved the drawings and signed one on the day he stated that he told the respondent not to proceed with the work. I find the actions of the applicant contradictory on the one hand approving and on the other hand on the same day and at the same meeting terminating the agreement orally.
14. The written agreement dated 9 July 2014 does not refer to any condition that the respondent would facilitate a loan or obtain a loan for the applicant. The written agreement supports the evidence of the respondent. I accept and for this reason prefer the evidence of the respondent to that of the applicant. The applicant's son in contacting a finance broker supports the respondent's version that the applicant was to arrange finance for the project.
15. The written agreement between the applicant and respondent is clear in its intention that is for the respondent to prepare drawings and applications for plans to be submitted to council for a planning permit and beyond that, subject to approval to proceed to plans to obtain a building permit. The evidence from the applicant lacked detail and at times was contradictory. He did not call his finance broker to give evidence regarding discussions with the respondent or financial arrangements.
16. On the evidence before me and based on the findings above I am satisfied that the applicant's claims are unproven.
17. The applicant's claim is dismissed.