Waiver in the Court of Appeal

The vagaries inherent in the operation of special conditions in land sale contracts have commonly required judicial interpretation. A further illustration is provided by the recent decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal (Jerrard, Keane JJA and Philip McMurdo J) in Donaldson and Donaldson v Bexton and Bexton [2006] QCA 559.

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 In these circumstances, it is clear that a buyer’s offer may be withdrawn.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).

Encroachment: what cost a pool with ocean views?

In Shadbolt v Wise [2002] QSC 348 the applicants were seeking relief under s184 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) in respect of an encroachment that they constructed on land belonging to the adjacent owner. The encroachment in question consisted of slightly less than one half of an elaborate pool and pool enclosure (the area of the encroachment being approximately 108 square metres). The land upon which the encroachment was situated was elevated with distant ocean views.

When is a warning statement “attached” to a contract?

Section 366 of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) provides that all contracts for the sale of residential property in Queensland (other than contracts formed on a sale by auction) should have “attached” as the first or top sheet a warning statement in the approved form. The section does not explain or define the meaning of the word “attached”. Further, the section does not contemplate the situation where the contract is faxed to a potential buyer for execution.

Land Sales Act 1984: The time limit for an application for exemption

The decision of Wilson J in Wan and Ors v NPD Property Development Pty Ltd [2004] QSC 232 also concerned the operation of the Land Sales Act 1984 (Qld) (‘the Act’). As previously noted, s 8(1) of the Act provides that a proposed allotment of freehold land might be sold only in certain circumstances. An agreement made in contravention of s 8(1) is void. Section 19 allows a purchaser (and others) to apply for an exemption from any of the provisions of Pt 2. By s 19(6), notwithstanding s 8, a person may agree to sell a proposed allotment if the instrument that binds a person to purchase the proposed allotment is conditional upon the grant of an exemption. By s 19(7) an application for exemption must be made ‘within 30 days after the event that marks the entry of a purchaser upon the purchase of the proposed allotment.’

'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)

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.

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).

Unreasonable withholding of consent?

In Cathmark Pty Ltd v NetherCott Constructions Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 86, Cullinane J was asked to consider whether a landlord had unreasonably withheld consent to a tenant’s proposed assignment of lease. In reaching a conclusion that the landlord had acted unreasonably, the decision provides useful guidance on an issue that is common in a proposed sale of business context.