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 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.

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.’

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.

Beware the second offer!

In conveyancing of all types, it is very common that a contract will only be formed after often lengthy negotiations which may involve a counter-offer or multiple counter-offers. At common law, the laws of contract that govern these arrangements are well known and well understood. However, the legislative overlay imposed by the requirements of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) (‘PAMDA’) can create difficulties as illustrated by the result in Rice v Ray [2009] QDC 275.

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.

Joinder to a later unsigned document?

It is well known that a statutory requirement of formality is associated with contracts concerning land. In this regard, s 59 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) provides: No action may be brought upon any contract for the sale or other disposition of land or any interest in land unless the contract upon which such action is brought, or some memorandum or note of the contract, is in writing, and signed by the party to be charged, or by some person by the party lawfully authorised. In addition to the possibility of a formal contract, the statutory wording clearly contemplates reliance on an informal note or memorandum. To constitute a sufficient note or memorandum for the purposes of the statute, the signed note or memorandum must contain details of the parties to the contract, an adequate description of the property, the price and any other essential terms. It is also accepted that the doctrine of joinder may be invoked in circumstances where the document signed by the party to be charged contains an express or implied reference to any other document. In this way, a sufficient note or memorandum may be constituted by the joinder of a number of documents.