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

Dixon, Bill

English

Queensland University of Technology ePrints Archive

This is the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for pub-lication in the following source:Dixon, William M. (2010) Beware statutory disclosure obligations. TheQueensland Lawyer, 30(3), pp. 98-100.This file was downloaded from: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/42407/c© Copyright 2010 Lawbook CompanyNotice: Changes introduced as a result of publishing processes such ascopy-editing and formatting may not be reflected in this document. For adefinitive version of this work, please refer to the published source: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.  Facts  The applicant developer proposed to reconfigure an existing lot into a 24 lot community titles scheme as part of the development of a commercial/retail building.  To facilitate sales, the developer entered into put and call option agreements for the sale of proposed lots with a number of separate parties (‘the respondents’).  The option agreements were in materially identical terms and were entered into between March and May 2007.  Approximately 2 years later, the respondents purported to terminate the option agreements.  To support termination, a number of grounds were relied upon:  non-compliance with s 421(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld);  non-compliance with the requirements of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld);  termination rights flowing from the option agreements being found to be instalment contracts within the meaning of s 71 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld); and   non-compliance with the requirements of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld).  Each of these grounds was separately considered by Mullins J.  Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) (‘EPA’)  The existing lot (that was proposed to be reconfigured as the24 lot community titles scheme) was included in the environmental management register when the option agreements were entered into.  The issue for determination by Mullins J was whether the applicant developer was required to comply with s 421(2) of the EPA prior to entering the option agreements.  Relevantly, s 421(2) provides that if an owner proposes to dispose of land to a buyer, the owner must, before agreeing to dispose of the land, give written notice to the buyer of, amongst other things, the fact that particulars of the land are recorded in the environmental management register.  Failure to comply with this requirement entitles the buyer to rescind the agreement by written notice to the owner before completion of the agreement pursuant to s 421(3).  Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld)    Property Law Act 1974 (Qld)    Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld)    

Beware Statutory Disclosure Obligations

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Queensland University of Technology ePrints Archive