'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.

'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.

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.

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.

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.

'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.

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.

Mortgages and insolvency

With an amalgam of statutory and common law duties, great care has always been required when considering the obligations of either mortgagees or receivers when exercising power of sale. Unfortunately, that position has only become more complicated with the enactment of the Property Law (Mortgagor Protection) Amendment Act 2008 (Qld).

Surrogacy and IVF

While in the past surrogacy was illegal in Queensland, since June 2010 the Surrogacy Act 2010 (Qld) (“the Act”) has made altruistic surrogacy arrangements lawful in Queensland. In addition, it provides a mechanism for transfer of legal parentage from the surrogate to the person(s) wishing to have a child (the intended parent(s)). Commercial surrogacy – where a payment, reward or other material benefit of advantage (other than the reimbursement of the “birth mother’s surrogacy costs” (s11 of the Act) is made for entering into a surrogacy arrangement – remains unlawful. The paramount guiding principle underpinning the Act is that of the wellbeing and best interests of a child born as a result of surrogacy. The Surrogacy Act 2010 (Qld) allows a single person or a couple (heterosexual or same sex couples) to enter into an agreement with a woman, and her partner (if she has one), to become pregnant with the intention that the child will be relinquished to the intended parent(s). The Act also provides a mechanism for the intended parent(s) to be legally recognised as the parent(s) of the child. In order for the intended parent(s) to be legally recognised (via a parentage order, discussed below) it must be shown that the surrogacy arrangement was entered into when all the parties were over 25 years of age and the intended parent(s) are male or, in a heterosexual or lesbian couple the female(s) are not likely to conceive or give birth to a healthy child due to medical reasons. The arrangement must be entered into before the surrogate becomes pregnant and all parties must have obtained independent legal advice and counselling about the proposed arrangement, and evidence of this is required at the time a parentage order is applied for. For the purposes of the Act it does not matter how the surrogate conceives the child or if the child is genetically related to the parties. During the period of the pregnancy, the surrogate has the right to manage her pregnancy in the way she wishes. Although she cannot profit from acting as a surrogate, section 11 states that she is entitled to surrogacy costs. These include, for example, reasonable medical costs related to pregnancy and the birth of the child; counselling and legal costs associated with the surrogacy arrangement; actual lost earnings because of leave taken during pregnancy or following birth and any reasonable travel expenses incurred. The surrogacy arrangement itself is not legally enforceable; however, obligations to pay a surrogate’s surrogacy costs are enforceable unless she chooses not to relinquish the child to the intending parents. While the Act does not specifically deal with the situation where the surrogate decides she is unprepared to relinquish the child to the intended parents, there have been examples where parties have entered into these kinds of arrangements, and the arrangements have become difficult. For example, the Family Court case of Re Evelyn (1998) FLC 92–807 involved a child born to a surrogate mother who decided not to surrender her. The child was the genetic child of the surrogate mother and the husband of the couple who had contracted with the surrogate mother. Both sets of parents brought proceedings in the court, seeking that the child live with them. In hearing the application, the court applied the paramount principle of the ‘best interests of the child’. The court made clear that there is no presumption in favour of the birth mother, although in this case the court found that the child may be better placed with the surrogate mother’s family.

Surrogacy - A Path of Obstacles

Surrogacy has become an effective and accepted form of reproductive technology. It enables couples, regardless of gender or sexuality, to achieve the dream of becoming a parent in circumstances where other forms of reproductive technology and adoption are either not possible or have failed. To its credit, the Queensland parliament has recently brought this state up to date by enacting surrogacy laws that are in line with the majority of statutes implemented throughout the country. The Surrogacy Act 2010 (Qld) allows for the court to make a parentage order in certain circumstances where parties have entered into a surrogacy arrangement. A parentage order effectively transfers parental rights from the birth mother (and her spouse or de facto if there is one) to the intended parents. The requirements which must be satisfied to obtain a parenting order are comprehensive and onerous, making the path to parenthood through a surrogacy arrangement by no means easy. At the heart of the surrogacy issue lies a question, the answer to which has shifted and continues to shift as reproductive technologies continue to increase in success, method and popularity - what is a parent? A recent decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Hudson v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, brought to attention the meaning of the word ‘parent’ as it appears in s 16(2) Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (‘the Act’). Section 16(2) deals with citizenship by descent and provides that a person born outside Australia may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen if a parent of the person was an Australian citizen at the time of the birth.