No more than a messenger?

If a real estate agent describes a property as being “a golden opportunity to invest” the expression will be readily construed as mere “puffery”. The legal landscape changes when a real estate agent describes a property as “leased” and having a “guaranteed net income”. Can an agent avoid potential liability, for an inaccurate description, by arguing that they were merely acting as a messenger to pass on information received from their vendor client? The potential liability of real estate agent “messengers” was recently considered by the Queensland Court of Appeal in Banks & Anor v Copas Newnham Pty Ltd & Ors [2002] QCA 217.

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.

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

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).

Ready willing and able or not?

A recent decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal (Keane JA, Fryberg and Applegarth JJ) will be of considerable interest to conveyancers. The decision is Davidson v Bucknell [2009] QCA 383.

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.

An examination of tax-deductible donations made by individual Australian taxpayers in 2008-09, ACPNS Working Paper 54

Each year, The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies (CPNS) at Queensland University of Technology (QUT) collects and analyses statistics on the amount and extent of tax-deductible donations made and claimed by Australians in their individual income tax returns to deductible gift recipients (DGRs). The information presented below is based on the amount and type of tax-deductible donations made and claimed by Australian individual taxpayers to DGRs for the period 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009. This information has been extracted mainly from the Australian Taxation Office's (ATO) publication Taxation Statistics 2008-09. The 2008-09 report is the latest report that has been made publicly available. It represents information in tax returns for the 2008-09 year processed by the ATO as at 31 October 2010.