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.

Beware statutory disclosure obligations

Great care is needed to ensure strict compliance with statutory disclosure obligations in conveyancing. The types of issues that may arise are well illustrated by the facts before the court in APM Property 3 Pty Ltd v Blondeau [2009] QSC 326, decision of Mullins J.

The meaning of 'material prejudice'

As dictated by s 213 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), the seller of a proposed lot is required to provide the buyer with a disclosure statement before the contract is entered into. Where the seller subsequently becomes aware that information contained in the disclosure statement was inaccurate when the contract was entered into or the disclosure statement would not be accurate if now given as a disclosure statement, the seller must, within 14 days, give the buyer a further statement rectifying the inaccuracies in the disclosure statement. Provided the contract has not been settled, where a further statement varies the disclosure statement to such a degree that the buyer would be materially prejudiced if compelled to complete the contract, the buyer may cancel the contract by written notice given to the seller within 14 days, or a longer period as agreed between the parties, after the seller gives the buyer the further statement. The term ‘material prejudice’ was considered by Wilson J in Wilson v Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd.

Legislative change will impact on conveyancing

One of the more significant conveyancing decisions of 2005 was MNM Developments Pty Ltd v Gerrard [2005] QCA 230 (‘Gerrard’). Real estate agents, in particular, became concerned when the Court of Appeal raised grave doubts concerning the validity of a contract for the sale of residential property formed by the use of fax. As a result, the government acted quickly to introduce amendments to the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) (‘PAMDA’) and the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (‘BCCMA’). The relevant Act is the Liquor and Other Acts Amendment Act 2005 (Qld). These amendments commenced on 1 December 2005. In the second reading speech, the Minister stated that these amendments would provide certainty for sellers of residential properties or their agents when transmitting pre-contractual documents by facsimile and other electronic means. The accuracy of this prediction must be assessed in light of the errors that may occur.

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.

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.

Changes to conveyancing in Queensland

Significant amendments to the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) (‘PAMDA’) and the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (‘BCCMA’) were made by the Liquor and Other Acts Amendment Act 2005 (Qld). These amendments commenced on 1 December 2005. The purpose of this article is to briefly describe the amendments and to indicate certain issues that may arise in practice.

Conveyancing alert

Significant amendments to the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) (‘PAMDA’) and the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (‘BCCMA’) were made by the Liquor and Other Acts Amendment Act 2005 (Qld). These amendments commenced on 1 December 2005. The purpose of this alert is to very briefly describe the amendments and to indicate certain issues that may arise. The alert is intended to signal the need for careful perusal of these amendments.

Queensland property legislation update

This article discusses the legislative changes introduced by the new Government in Queensland in 2012 and their impact on property transactions. The changes generally relate to the government’s mandate to reduce red tape in property transactions as well as election promises to reintroduce the stamp duty reduction for the purchase of a home and wind back the previous government’s changes to the lot entitlement provisions of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997.

New laws for off the plan contracts in Queensland

The Land Sales Act 1984 regulates “off the plan” sales in Queensland in conjunction with several provisions in the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997. Together the Acts regulate sales in both unit developments and housing estates. From 2010 to 2013 the Queensland Government undertook a comprehensive review of the Land Sales Act 1984 to identify opportunities to modernise and improve the legislation. Significant changes were recommended by the Review to align the Land Sales Act 1984 (LSA) with current surveying and conveyancing practice and to overcome a number of practical issues faced by developers under the current legislation. A significant outcome of the review is the removal of provisions related to off the plan community title sales from the LSA to the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (BCCMA) and the Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980 (BUGTA). This article examines the Land Sales and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2014 due to commence in November 2014.

'State' of play : Queensland report

A number of recent legislative amendments impact on property law practice in Queensland. Property Law (Mortgagor Protection) Amendment Act 2008 (Qld) Body Corporate and Community Management Amendment Act 2009 (Qld) Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld) Vegetation Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 (Qld) Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld)

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).

Corporate profit and impression management in developing markets

In this study, we examine how organisations in Fiji communicate or legitimise their profit. We base the need for understanding this phenomenon on the following premise. Organisations are part of a wider society, and in competition for scarce resources. Organisations obtain the rights to consume resources upon conception, but must continually legitimise their rights of existence and the need to access the resources. Legitimacy is the ability to continue to justify one’s authority to exist in a society. Organisations rights to resources are contractual, and have a moral obligation to act in a responsible manner and justify their outcomes, actions, and activities to external stakeholders. Such justifications would be an attempt at legitimizing their existence by some form of impression management. Impression management refers to the process by which individuals attempt to influence the impression of others (Melo et al. 2009). In corporate reporting, impression management occurs when management selects, display, and presents that information in a manner that distorts readers’ perceptions of corporate achievements (Neu 1991; Patten 2002), and is managed best through disclosures (O’Donovan 2002). In developing economies, there is significant Government protection that creates near-monopoly sectors and industries. The rendered protection permits organisations to provide essential services to the community at reasonable costs. Organisations in these sectors and industries have an ominous need to legitimise their position and actions. The bond between the organisations and the society is much stronger, making organisations devote more effort in communicating their activities. Protection permits organisations to make reasonable profits to sustain their operations. Society may not accept abnormal profits from operational efficiencies. Profit is fundamental to the society’s perception of an organisation, amplifying the need for the firm to justify a level of profit. Abnormal profit for organisations construes bad news, and organisations would make relevant disclosures to manage stakeholder impressions on profit (Patten 2002). Organisations can manage impressions by disclosing information in a particular way. That is, organisations would want to put the impression that the abnormal profit is justified and the society will obtain its benefits in future. Such form of impression management requires unambiguous disclosure of information. The readability of corporate disclosures is an important indicator of organisational abnormal profit-related legitimacy efforts in developing economies.

GVS : A flexible, low-end, 3D visualisation framework for enhancing conceptual groundwater models for community, management and simulations

In this paper we discuss an advanced, 3D groundwater visualisation and animation system that allows scientists, government agencies and community groups to better understand the groundwater processes that effect community planning and decision-making. The system is unique in that it has been designed to optimise community engagement. Although it incorporates a powerful visualisation engine, this open-source system can be freely distributed and boasts a simple user interface allowing individuals to run and investigate the models on their own PCs and gain intimate knowledge of the groundwater systems. The initial version of the Groundwater Visualisation System (GVS v1.0), was developed from a coastal delta setting (Bundaberg, QLD), and then applied to a basalt catchment area (Obi Obi Creek, Maleny, QLD). Several major enhancements have been developed to produce higher quality visualisations, including display of more types of data, support for larger models and improved user interaction. The graphics and animation capabilities have also been enhanced, notably the display of boreholes, depth logs and time-series water level surfaces. The GVS software remains under continual development and improvement