Marketeers beware

The practices of marketeers in the Queensland property market have been the subject of intense media interest and have caused widespread consumer concern. In response to these concerns the Queensland government has amended the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) (“the Act”). Significant changes to the Act were introduced by the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Amendment Act 2001 (Qld) (“the amending Act”). Implicit in the introduction of the amending Act was recognition that marketeers had altered their operating tactics to avoid the requirements of the Act. The amendments enhance regulation and are intended to capture the conduct of all persons involved in unconscionable practices that have lead to dysfunction in certain sectors of the Queensland property market. The amending Act is focussed on a broad regulatory response rather than further regulation of specific occupations in the property sale process as it was recognised that the approach of industry regulation had proven to be inadequate to curtail marketeering practices and to protect the interests of consumers. As well as providing for increased disclosure obligations on real estate agents, property developers and lawyers together with an extension of the 5 business day cooling-off period to all contracts (other than auction contracts) for the sale of residential property in Queensland; in an endeavour to further protect consumer interests the amending Act provides for increased jurisdiction and powers to the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) enabling the Tribunal to deal with claims against marketeers. These provisions commenced on the date of assent (21 September 2001). The aim of this article is to examine the circumstances in which marketeers will contravene the legislation and the ramifications.

Mortgagee sale obligations tightened

The enactment of the Property Law (Mortgagor Protection) Amendment Act 2008 (Qld), means that the obligations of a mortgagee exercising power of sale or a receiver selling have been substantially tightened in Queensland. Background As explained in the explanatory notes accompanying the legislation, with current global economic and financial circumstances, there were concerns about the position of mortgagors when mortgagees exercised their powers of sale. The objective of the amending legislation was to protect the interests of mortgagors by strengthening the statutory provisions relating to the duty of the mortgagee exercising power of sale to take reasonable care to ensure the property is sold at market value. The amending legislation was urgently passed without any consultation process.

Queensland Court of Appeal opines on the meaning of 'material prejudice'

The decision of Wilson J in Wilson v Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd was the subject of an article in an earlier edition of this journal. At that time, it was foreshadowed that the decision was to be taken on appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal in Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd v Wilson is considered in this article.

Statutory right of user imposed for landlocked land

The decision of McMurdo J in Pacific Coast Investments Pty Ltd v Cowlishaw [2005] QSC 259 concerned an application under s 180 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) for a statutory right of user.

The impact of location on contribution schedule lot entitlements

Should the owner of a penthouse unit pay more in body corporate levies than the ground floor unit owner? A decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal (McPherson JA, Chesterman and Atkinson JJ) will be of great interest to those seeking to challenge contribution schedule lot entitlements imposed under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (‘the Act’). The decision is Fischer v Body Corporate for Centrepoint Community Title Scheme 7779 [2004] QCA 214.

Attach the correct warning statement

Practitioners will be aware that s 366 (1) of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 provides that a relevant contract must have attached, as its first or top sheet, a warning statement in the approved form. A failure to attach a warning statement in the prescribed manner triggers a right of termination in the buyer. The factual circumstances in Devine Ltd v Timbs [2004] QSC 24 are indicative of the problems that may arise in the construction of this statutory provision. The application concerned put and call option agreements entered into concerning 4 lots. The agreements, in identical terms, were signed before the applicant seller had completed a proposed residential apartment building. In each case the option agreement provided that the agreement was not binding on the seller until and unless the purchaser returned to the seller, amongst other things, two copies of the warning statement under the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Ac 2000 signed by the purchaser and two copies of the contract document signed by the purchaser. The seller was required to hold the contract documentation in escrow and was forbidden to sign it until and unless either option was exercised.

The requirement to 'Start a Proceeding' to prevent the lapse of a caveat

Section 126 of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) regulates whether, and if so, when a caveat will lapse. While certain caveats will not lapse due to the operation of s 126(1), if a caveator does not wish a caveat to which the section applies to lapse, the caveator must start a proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction to establish the interest claimed under the caveat within the time limits specified in, and otherwise comply with the obligations imposed by, s 126(4). The requirement, in s 126(4), to “start a proceeding” was the subject of judicial examination by the Court of Appeal (McMurdo P, Holmes JA and MacKenzie J) in Cousins Securities Pty Ltd v CEC Group Ltd [2007] QCA 192.

Statutory fraud or not?

The possibility of fraud lurks easily in the context of a mortgage transaction (as recently exemplified by the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal in Young v Hoger [2001] QCA 461). A relatively novel issue, involving an allegation of fraudulent behaviour, arose for consideration by Justice Wilson in Unic v Quartermain Holdings Pty Ltd [2001] QSC 403