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.

The extent of the insured’s duty of disclosure : a comparative analysis of the disclosure obligations of insured in Australia, Singapore and China

Pre-contractual material disclosure and representation from an insurance policy proposer is the most important element for insurers to make a decision on whether a proposer is insurable and what are the terms and conditions if the proposal by the proposer is able to be insured. The issue this thesis researches and investigates focus on the issues related to the pre-contractual non-disclosures and misrepresentations of an insured under the principle of utmost good faith, by operation of laws, can achieve with different results in different jurisdiction. A similar disputed claim involving material non-disclosed personal information or misrepresentation at the pre-contractual stage from an insured with respect to both general and life insurance policies settled by an insurer in Australia could be that the policy is set aside ab initio by the insurers in Singapore or China. The jurisdictions this thesis examines are • Australia; • Singapore; and • China including Hong Kong.

Disclosure obligations on ex parte application for freezing order - duty of practitioners to the court - failure to comply with duty - serious dereliction of duty to court - supplemental order for costs against solicitors personally

The decision of Applegarth J in Heartwood Architectural & Joinery Pty Ltd v Redchip Lawyers [2009] QSC 195 (27 July 2009) involved a costs order against solicitors personally. This decision is but one of several recent decisions in which the court has been persuaded that the circumstances justified costs orders against legal practitioners on the indemnity basis. These decisions serve as a reminder to practitioners of their disclosure obligations when seeking any interlocutory relief in an ex parte application. These obligations are now clearly set out in r 14.4 of the Legal Profession (Solicitors) Rule 2007 and r 25 of 2007 Barristers Rule. Inexperience or ignorance will not excuse breaches of the duties owed to the court.

Disclosure obligations - Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002

In Huag v Jupiters Limited [2007] QSC 068, Lyons J considered the extent of the obligations imposed upon a respondent under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 to disclose documents and information.

Practice & procedure : disclosure obligations - Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 s27

In Huag v Jupiters Limited [2007] QCA 199 the Queensland Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from interlocutory orders made in the trial division of the court and concluded that, although provisions such as s27 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) should be given a broad, remedial construction, this did not mean the words of limitation in the section could be ignored.

Behavioural biases and information disclosure laws relating to residential property sales : narrowing the gap between existing laws and calls for future reforms

Market failures involving the sale of complex merchandise, such as residential property, financial products and credit, have principally been attributed to information asymmetries. Existing legislative and regulatory responses were developed having regard to consumer protection policies based on traditional economic theories that focus on the notion of the ‘rational consumer’. Governmental responses therefore seek to impose disclosure obligations on sellers of complex goods or products to ensure that consumers have sufficient information upon which to make a decision. Emergent research, based on behavioural economics, challenges traditional ideas and instead focuses on the actual behaviour of consumers. This approach suggests that consumers as a whole do not necessarily benefit from mandatory disclosure because some, if not most, consumers do not pay attention to the disclosed information before they make a decision to purchase. The need for consumer policies to take consumer characteristics and behaviour into account is being increasingly recognised by governments, and most recently in the policy framework suggested by the Australian Productivity Commission

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).

The Neighbourhood Disputes Resolution Act 2011 (Qld) and disclosure issues

This article examines the recently introduced Neighbourhood Disputes Resolution Act 2011 (Qld). The operation of the Act is considered as it impacts upon the responsibility of neighbours for dividing fences and trees as well as disclosure obligations associated with sale transactions. A particular focus of the article is the interrelationship of the disclosure obligations imposed by the Act with the operation of standard contractual warranties in Queensland.

Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act : take two

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 commenced 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.

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.

The impact of regulatory reforms on the earnings forecasting behaviour of IPO firms

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to jointly assess the impact of regulatory reform for corporate fundraising in Australia (CLERP Act 1999) and the relaxation of ASX admission rules in 1999, on the accuracy of management earnings forecasts in initial public offer (IPO) prospectuses. The relaxation of ASX listing rules permitted a new category of new economy firms (commitments test entities (CTEs))to list without a prior history of profitability, while the CLERP Act (introduced in 2000) was accompanied by tighter disclosure obligations and stronger enforcement action by the corporate regulator (ASIC). Design/methodology/approach – All IPO earnings forecasts in prospectuses lodged between 1998 and 2003 are examined to assess the pre- and post-CLERP Act impact. Based on active ASIC enforcement action in the post-reform period, IPO firms are hypothesised to provide more accurate forecasts, particularly CTE firms, which are less likely to have a reasonable basis for forecasting. Research models are developed to empirically test the impact of the reforms on CTE and non-CTE IPO firms. Findings – The new regulatory environment has had a positive impact on management forecasting behaviour. In the post-CLERP Act period, the accuracy of prospectus forecasts and their revisions significantly improved and, as expected, the results are primarily driven by CTE firms. However, the majority of prospectus forecasts continue to be materially inaccurate. Originality/value – The results highlight the need to control for both the changing nature of listed firms and the level of enforcement action when examining responses to regulatory changes to corporate fundraising activities.

Pool safety in Queensland

This article examines recent changes to the Building Act 1975 (Qld) intended to promote pool safety in Queensland. The impact of these statutory changes is considered in relation to both compliance obligations and disclosure obligations associated with sale and leasing transactions. The interrelationship of these changes with the operation of standard contractual provisions in Queensland is also examined.

Practice and Procedure. Self-executing order - construction - whether further judicial at required for self-executing order to take effect

In Mango Boulevard Pty Ltd v Spencer [2010] QCA 207, a self-executing order had been made in consequence of continuing default by parties to the proceedings in meeting their disclosure obligations. The case involved several questions about the construction and implications of the self-executing order. This note focuses on the aspects of the case relating to that order.

Submission to discussion paper : Queensland retirement villages

This submission is directed to addressing Issue 4 only – Entering a village and closure – implications for residents; and one question only – What particular items do you consider should be particularly addressed as part of the disclosure requirements for prospective retirement village residents? The recommendations below are premised on the basis that information to enable informed choice needs to be clearly presented, easy to understand and, while legal advice and assistance remains essential for any form of ‘conveyancing’ process, should enable decision making by prospective residents independent of that legal advice.