Search

Professor Sharon Christensen, Dr William Dixon and Professor Anne Wallace have updated the existing annotations to the Land Title Act 1994 as below.

Sharon Christensen has updated annotations to the Land Title Act 1994 to address the requirement from 2 March 2018 that a mortgage must be in the appropriate National Mortgage Form.

Anne Wallace has updated existing annotations and provided new annotations to the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld).

Scenario 1 A buys a two storey commercial building built along the only street frontage to the property. Vehicles cannot reach the rear of the property as the building extends across the entire width of the land. A bought the building with full knowledge that vehicular access to the rest of the property had been compromised by a desire to obtain maximum street frontage for the building which was occupied by a commercial tenant. On street parking is scarce in the surrounding area. A (to the knowledge of the adjoining owner B) constructs a carpark at the rear of the building. The employees of A’s tenant have been using the carpark obtaining access via a driveway on B’s land. To formalise this arrangement, A seeks a right of way for vehicles to travel down B’s driveway to access the carpark...

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).

The twists and turns in the ongoing development of the implied common law good faith obligation in the commercial contractual arena continue to prove fertile academic ground. Despite a lack of guidance from the High Court, the lower courts have been besieged by claims based, in part, on the implied obligation. Although lower court authority is lacking consistency and the ‘decisions in which lower courts have recognised the legitimacy of implication of a term of good faith vary in their suggested rationales’, the implied obligation may provide some comfort to a party to ‘at least some commercial contracts’ faced with a contractual counterpart exhibiting symptoms of bad faith.

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).

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.

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?

Wholesale amendments to the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) were recently introduced with the passing of the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2005 (Qld). The amendments were preceded by an extensive review of issues associated with the operation of the freehold land register and consultation with a number of stakeholders. The three articles that follow address different issues associated with these statutory amendments. The first article provides a brief overview of the amendments. The second article deals with particular amendments designed to combat mortgage fraud. In the third article, the question posed is whether further statutory amendment could better protect unregistered interests.

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.

A contract for the sale of a mixed farming property fronting the Murrumbidgee River provided the basis for a dispute that recently found its way to the High Court. The decision is Park v Brothers [2005] HCA 73. Although largely concerned with appellate court practice and procedure, the decision will also be of interest to those practising in property law and general contract law.

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 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.

There are many issues associated with good faith that will ultimately confront the Australian High Court and a number of these have been well canvassed. However, one significant issue has attracted relatively little comment. To date, a number of Australian courts (lower in the judicial hierarchy) have been prepared to hold directly, tacitly accept or assume (without making a final determination) that good faith is implied (as a matter of law) in the performance and enforcement of a very broad class of contract, namely commercial contracts per se. This broad approach is demonstrated in decisions from the Federal Court, the New South Wales Court of Appeal, the Supreme Courts of Victoria and Western Australia and has crept into pleadings in commercial matters in Queensland

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.’

Justice Mullins of the Queensland Supreme Court recently considered the status of a put option contained in a registered lease in circumstances where there was an assignment of the reversion. The matter arose for determination in Denham Bros Ltd v W Freestone Leasing Pty Ltd [2002] QSC 307. The decision is of interest as a lease containing a put option, exercisable by a landlord, is perhaps less commonly encountered than a lease containing a call option, exercisable by a tenant.

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.

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.

The Reference Schedule to the REIQ houses and land contract and the lots in a Community Titles Scheme (“CTS”) contract has been amended to contain provision for disclosure concerning the installation of an approved safety switch. This section will not be required to be completed if the land is vacant (in the case of the houses and land contract) or if the present use is a commercial use (in the case of the lots in a CTS contract).

The Tourism, Racing and Fair Trading (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2002 (“the Act”) which was passed on 18 April 2002 contains a number of significant amendments relevant to the operation of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000. The main changes relevant to property transactions are: (i) Changes to the process for appointment of a real estate agent and consolidation of the appointment forms; (ii) Additions to the disclosure obligation of agents and property developers; (iii) Simplification of the process for commencing the cooling off period; (iv) Alteration of the common law position concerning when the parties are bound by a contract; (v) Removal of the requirement for a seller’s signature on the warning statement to be witnessed; (vi) Retrospective amendment of s 170 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997; (vii) Inclusion of a new power to allow inspectors to enter the place of business of a licensee or a marketeer without consent and without a warrant; and (viii) Inclusion of a new power for inspectors to require documents to be produced by marketeers. The majority of the amendments are effective from the date of assent, 24 April 2002, however, some of the amendments do not commence until a date fixed by proclamation. No proclamation has been made at the time of writing (2 May 2002). Where the amendments have not commenced this will be noted in the article. Before providing clients with advice, practitioners should carefully check proclamation details.

The Full Federal Court has once again been called upon to explore the limits of s51AA of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) in the context of a retail tenancy between commercially experienced parties. The decision is Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Samton Holdings Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 62.

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.

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 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).

Land Titles Law and Practice provides an extensive reference guide to the Land Title Act 1994 Qld and associated practice. It includes a comprehensive examination of the law relating to the Land Title Act 1994 Qld and the law of land titles in Queensland.