'Attaching' warning statements by facsimile transmission

Section 366(1) of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) (‘PAMD’) provides that a relevant contract must have attached, as its first or top sheet, a statement in the approved form being a warning statement. Failure to comply with this statutory requirement entitles a purchaser to terminate the contract. The meaning to be attributed to the statutory reference to ‘attached’ will clearly be problematic where documentation is sent by way of facsimile transmission. This was the issue that arose for consideration by Newton DCJ in MNM Developments Pty Ltd v Gerrard [2005] QDC 10.

Real estate agents, brochure and misleading or deceptive conduct

The decision of the High Court in Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 60 involves issues that affect every person who is induced to buy real estate in Australia by statements in sales brochures distributed by real estate agents. One of these issues is the extent to which estate agents unwittingly engage in misleading or deceptive conduct under s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (‘the Act’) when they distribute sales brochures that contain untrue or misleading statements prepared by others. A further issue is the extent to which agents can escape liability by relying on disclaimers about the authenticity of false statements contained in brochures prepared by them.

'Attaching' warning statements by facsimile consumer protection prevails!

Section 366 of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) (‘PAMDA’) mandates that all contracts for the sale of residential property in Queensland (other than contracts formed on a sale by auction) have a warning statement ‘attached’ as the first or top sheet. Alternative judicial views have emerged concerning the possibility of attaching a warning statement to a contract sent by facsimile. In recognition of the consumer protection nature of the legislation, in MP Management (Aust) Pty Ltd v Churven [2002] QSC 320 Muir J favoured a restrictive view of the word ‘attached’ requiring physical joinder of the warning statement to the relevant contract. In contrast, in MNM Developments Pty Ltd v Gerrard [2005] QDC 10 Newton DCJ opined that the requirements of the PAMDA could be met where the warning statement preceded the contract of sale in a facsimile transmission sent in one continuous stream. Newton DCJ considered that this broader approach promoted commercial convenience. In an appeal from the decision of Newton DCJ, in MNM Developments Pty Ltd v Gerrard [2005] QCA 230 a majority of the Queensland Court of Appeal has held that the restrictive view propounded by Muir J is correct. Notwithstanding possible commercial inconvenience, it is not possible for a warning statement to be attached to a contract sent by facsimile.

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.

Black v Garnock : implications for Queensland conveyancing practice

What was previously established as a fundamental principle, that a judgment creditor may take no interest beyond what the judgment debtor could give, has now been called into question by the decision of the High Court in Black v Garnock [2007] HCA 31. This article examines the implications of the decision of the High Court for conveyancing practice in Queensland. The relevant facts of Black v Garnock [2007] HCA 31 may be briefly stated: The Garnocks and the Luffs, as purchasers, entered a contract to purchase a rural property from Mrs Smith with settlement due on 24 August 2005. On 23 August 2005, a creditor obtained a writ against Mrs Smith from the District Court of New South Wales. No caveat was lodged on behalf of the purchasers prior to settlement (there being no equivalent, in New South Wales, of the Queensland settlement notice mechanism).

Swell : a feature-length screenplay set in the world of Australian surfing, and an accompanying exegesis on three-act structure

Despite many arguments to the contrary, the three-act story structure, as propounded and refined by Hollywood continues to dominate the blockbuster and independent film markets. Recent successes in post-modern cinema could indicate new directions and opportunities for low-budget national cinemas.

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.

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?

Compensation for compulsory acquisition of a licensed car parking space

The Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (Qld) (‘the Act’) deals with the acquisition of land by the State for public purposes and provides for compensation. The issue that arose for determination in Sorrento Medical Service Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Dept of Main Roads [2007] QCA 73 was whether the appellant was entitled to claim compensation under the Act in respect of land resumed by the Main Roads Department over which the appellant had an exclusive contractual licence for car parking spaces for use in association with a medical centre leased by the appellant. At first instance, it was held by the Land Court that the appellant was not entitled to compensation for the resumption of the car parking spaces. The basis for this decision by the Land Court was that a right to compensation only exists where resumption has taken some proprietary interest of the claimant in the land. Following an appeal to the Land Appeal Court being dismissed, the appellant instituted the present appeal to the Queensland Court of Appeal (McMurdo P, Holmes JA and Chesterman J).

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.

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.

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.