Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act : strike three

The Tourism, Racing and Fair Trading (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2002 (“the Act”) which was passed on 18 April 2002 contains a number of significant amendments relevant to the operation of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000. The main changes relevant to property transactions are: (i) Changes to the process for appointment of a real estate agent and consolidation of the appointment forms; (ii) Additions to the disclosure obligation of agents and property developers; (iii) Simplification of the process for commencing the cooling off period; (iv) Alteration of the common law position concerning when the parties are bound by a contract; (v) Removal of the requirement for a seller’s signature on the warning statement to be witnessed; (vi) Retrospective amendment of s 170 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997; (vii) Inclusion of a new power to allow inspectors to enter the place of business of a licensee or a marketeer without consent and without a warrant; and (viii) Inclusion of a new power for inspectors to require documents to be produced by marketeers. The majority of the amendments are effective from the date of assent, 24 April 2002, however, some of the amendments do not commence until a date fixed by proclamation. No proclamation has been made at the time of writing (2 May 2002). Where the amendments have not commenced this will be noted in the article. Before providing clients with advice, practitioners should carefully check proclamation details.

Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act : take two

The Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 commenced on 1 July 2001. Significant changes have now been made to the Act by the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Amendment Act 2001 (“the amending Act”). The amending Act contains two distinct parts. First, ss 11-19 of the amending Act provide for increased disclosure obligations on real estate agents, property developers and lawyers together with an extension of the 5 business day cooling-off period imposed by the original Act to all residential property (other than contracts formed on a sale by auction). These provisions commenced on 29 October 2001. The remaining provisions of the amending Act provide 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.

Causing economic harm to property developers : damages for starting an incurably bad appeal?

A recent decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal involved an unusual statement of claim made on behalf of the developer of a proposed resort in Port Douglas. The decision is The Beach Club Port Douglas Pty Ltd v Page [2005] QCA 475. The issue The defendant had objected to a development application of the plaintiff developer and lodged an appeal in the Planning and Environment Court against the council decision granting a development permit. The main issue in the Planning and Environment Court was whether the site coverage of the proposed resort was excessive. In a separate action (the subject matter of the present appeal), the plaintiff developer claimed damages for ‘negligence’ alleging that the defendant had breached a duty of care not to appeal without properly or reasonably assessing whether the development qualified for a permit given that the resort qualified for the maximum allowable site coverage. It was alleged that the appeal lodged by the defendant in the Planning and Environment Court had no reasonable prospects of success and that any reasonable person properly advised would know, or ought reasonably to have known, that to be so. The defendant had been “put on notice” that the plaintiff would incur loss of $10,000 for every day there was a delay in starting construction of the resort. The claim made by the developer required the court to consider those circumstances where a person may lawfully and deliberately cause economic harm to another. Was a duty of care owed by the defendant for negligent conduct of litigation that caused economic loss to the plaintiff?

Waiver of statutory requirements : Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld)

One of the many difficulties associated with the drafting of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) (‘the Act’) is the operation of s 365. If the requirements imposed by this section concerning the return of the executed contract are not complied with, the buyer and the seller will not be bound by the relevant contract and the cooling-off period will not commence. In these circumstances, it is clear that a buyer’s offer may be withdrawn. However, the drafting of the Act creates a difficulty in that the ability of the seller to withdraw from the transaction prior to the parties being bound by the contract is not expressly provided by s 365. On one view, if the buyer is able to withdraw an offer at any time before receiving the prescribed contract documentation the seller also should not be bound by the contract until this time, notwithstanding that the seller may have been bound at common law. However, an alternative analysis is that the legislative omission to provide the seller with a right of withdrawal may be deliberate given the statutory focus on buyer protection. If this analysis were correct the seller would be denied the right to withdraw from the transaction after the contract was formed at common law (that is, after the seller had signed and the fact of signing had been communicated to the buyer).

Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act (Qld) : disclosure, cooling-off and marketeers

The Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 commenced on 1 July 2001. Significant changes have now been made to the Act by the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Amendment Act 2001 (“the amending Act”). The amending Act contains two distinct parts. First, ss 11-19 of the amending Act provide for increased disclosure obligations on real estate agents, property developers and lawyers together with an extension of the 5 business day cooling-off period imposed by the original Act to all residential property (other than contracts formed on a sale by auction). These provisions are expected to commence on 29 October 2001. The remaining provisions of the amending Act provide 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).

Can compensation be claimed under the standard commercial land and building contract where the property sold has no legally enforceable vehicular access?

This was the question that confronted Wilson J in Jarema Pty Ltd v Michihiko Kato [2004] QSC 451. Facts The plaintiff was the buyer of a commercial property at Bundall. The property comprised a 6 storey office building with a basement car park with 54 car parking spaces. The property was sold for $5 million with the contract being the standard REIQ/QLS form for Commercial Land and Buildings (2nd ed GST reprint). The contract provided for a “due diligence” period. During this period, the buyer’s solicitors discovered that there was no direct access from a public road to the car park entrance. Access to the car park was over a lot of which the Gold Coast City Council was the registered owner under a nomination of trustees, the Council holding the property on trust for car parking and town planning purposes. Due to the absence of a registered easement over the Council’s land, the buyer’s solicitors sought a reduction in the purchase price. The seller would not agree to this. Finally the sale was completed with the buyer reserving its rights to seek compensation.

The role of institutional rural property in diversified investment portfolios in NSW, Australia

The food and fuel crisis experienced in 2006 to 2008 has highlighted the importance of agricultural commodity production throughout developing and developed economies and has placed greater awareness and importance on rural property and rural property markets. These factors have led to an increased interest from major property investment institutions and property companies in the role of rural property in a mixed asset or mixed property investment portfolio. This paper will analyse rural property sales in New South Wales for the period 1990-2008, and will compare total return performance across a number of rural property sectors based on geographic location and land use type. These results show that the inclusion of rural property in an investment portfolio has benefits in relation to return and risk.

Tracking the Brisbane residential property market : Post GFC

Prior to the GFC, Brisbane and Perth were experiencing the highest increases in median residential house prices, compared to the other major Australian cities, due to strong demand for both owner occupied and investment residential property. In both these cities, a major driver of this demand and subsequent increases in residential property prices was the strong resources sector. With the onset of the GFC in 2008, the resources and construction sectors in Queensland contracted significantly and this had both direct and indirect impacts on the Brisbane residential property market. However, this impact was not consistent across Brisbane residential property sectors. The affect on houses and units differed, as did the impact based on geographic location and suburb value. This paper tracks Brisbane residential property sales listings, sales and returns over the period February 2009 to July 2010 and provides an analysis of the residential market for 24 Brisbane suburbs. These suburbs cover main residential areas of Brisbane and are based on an equal number of low, medium and high socioeconomic areas of Brisbane. This assessment of socio-economic status for the suburbs is based on both median household income and median house price. The analysis will cover both free standing residential property and residential units/townhouses/villas. The results will show how each of these residential property sub markets have performed following the GFC.

Understanding the diversity of non-specialised units within Australian property degrees

Building on the recommendations of the Bradley Review (2008), the Australian Federal government intends to promote a higher level of penetration of tertiary qualification across the broader Australian community which is anticipated to result in increased levels of standardisation across university degrees. In the field of property, tertiary academic programs are very closely aligned to the needs of a range of built environment professions and there are well developed synergies between the relevant professional bodies and the educational institutions. The strong nexus between the academic and the professional content is characterised by ongoing industry accreditation which nominates a range of outcomes which the academic programs must maintain across a range of specified metrics. Commonly, the accrediting bodies focus on standard of minimum requirements especially in the area of specialised subject areas where they require property graduates to demonstrate appropriate learning and attitudes. In addition to nominated content fields, in every undergraduate degree program there are also many other subjects which provide a richer experience for the students beyond the merely professional. This study focuses on the nonspecialised knowledge field which varies across the universities offering property degree courses as every university has the freedom to pursue its own policy for these non-specialised units. With universities being sensitive to their role of in the appropriate socialisation of new entrants, first year units have been used as a vehicle to support students’ transition into university education and the final year units seek to support students’ integration into the professional world. Consequentially, many property programs have to squeeze their property-specific units to accommodate more generic units for both first year and final year units and the resulting diversity is a feature of the current range of property degrees across Australia which this research will investigate. The matrix of knowledge fields nominated by the Australian Property Institute for accreditation of degrees accepted for Certified Practising Valuer (CPV) educational requirement and the complementary requirements of the other major accrediting body (RICS) are used to classify and compare similarities and differences across property degrees in the light of the streamlining anticipated from the Bradley Review.