By Russell Cocks, Solicitor

First published in the Law Institute Journal

Does a vendor of real estate have an obligation to disclose that a death occurred on the property in the past?

The underlying principle governing the relationship at common law between a vendor and a purchaser is caveat emptor – let the purchaser beware. The application of that principle would mean that a purchaser should conduct its own inquiries in relation to the antecedents of the property and that the vendor has no obligation to voluntarily disclose the circumstances of any deaths and, indeed, whether such deaths occurred.

The vendor could not actively mislead the purchaser, as misrepresentation is an exception to caveat emptor, but only in the limited circumstances of a positive misrepresentation. Misrepresentation by silence is not known to the common law in this regard and a vendor who avoided making any positive misrepresentations was safe.

However the vendor’s common law disclosure obligations have been substantially supplemented by the statutory obligations set out in s 32 Sale of Land Act 1962. These include the obligation to disclose title restrictions, planning obligations and the service of any notices affecting the land, but none of the many obligations imposed by s 32 appear to extend to an obligation to disclose that a death occurred on the property.

There is much to be said for the argument that a vendor should not have any obligation in this regard. There are many practical difficulties of deciding which deaths attract the obligation. A sensational murder immediately prior to sale might attract the obligation, but what of the natural death of a long term owner? There are infinite possibilities between these two situations and striking a fair balance would be difficult. And would the obligation be limited to death? What about other crimes like drug production or paedophilia? The law must not shy away from difficult tasks, but these practical considerations highlight the potential difficulties.

Some American States, which also apply caveat emptor, have created specific disclosure obligations for what are known as ‘stigmatised properties’, which cover not only death but also other criminal activity and, perhaps only in America, paranormal activity. An arbitrary period of 3 years prior to sale (or leasing) provides some recognition that death is a natural event.

Estate Agents

Agents are subject to regulation designed to protect both vendor and purchaser. Thus, whilst the vendor might not owe a duty to the purchaser, the agent does.

A NSW case involving the sale of a home in which two sons had murdered their parents led to an outcry and the vendors voluntarily terminated the contract, preventing a Court determination of the issue. However the agent was found guilty of disciplinary charges for failing to inform the prospective purchaser and NSW agents are now subject to a specific rule requiring them to bring such matters to the attention of the purchaser. New Zealand has similar requirements in relation to suicide.

No such specific ethical obligation exists for Victorian agents but there is a general duty of honesty and best practice that might be used as a basis for a claim by a purchaser. Agents are also subject to the general duties not to mislead or deceive, positively or by silence, created by the Australian Consumer Law and this is likely to be the direction of attack from a disaffected purchaser.

Charles Lloyd Property Group Pty Ltd v Buchanan [2013] VSC 148

This case provides some hope that the Walls of Jericho will not crumble in the face of the trumpets playing the ACL tune. The purchaser sought to avoid a contract based on post-contract discovery that a suicide had occurred on the land. There were many factors against the purchaser, not least of which was a confirmation of the contract by the purchaser AFTER the knowledge of the suicide had been acquired, that resulted in the failure of the complaint but it was somewhat re-assuring that the Court found that the complaint should be dismissed as it ‘had no reasonable prospect of success’.

Tip Box

• Whilst written for Victoria this article has interest and relevance for practitioners in all states.
• Properties may be stigmatised by criminal activity.
• Vendors presently probably have no disclosure obligations.
• Estate agents may be obliged to disclose as a result of their duty to purchaser.

By Russell Cocks, Solicitor

First published in the Law Institute Journal

Not many s 32 cases make it to the Supreme Court. McHutchison v Asli [2017] VSC 258 is an exception and it provides an authoritative answer to a reasonably common scenario.

The vendor was selling a property that was sewered by means of a septic tank system. That sentence sounds somewhat contradictory as the word ‘sewered’ implies that the property is connected to a system that removes waste from the property entirely, rather than collecting the effluent in an on-site tank for treatment and dispersal within the property. The property was a large property in an outlying suburb of Melbourne and, for people familiar with the local conditions, a septic system was perhaps the norm. However, the purchaser had no experience of local conditions and sought to avoid the contract on the basis of a breach of the vendor’s disclosure obligations pursuant to s 32 Sale of Land Act 1962.

The purchaser’s primary argument was that the vendor had breached s 32H in relation to disclosure of services. That section requires a vendor to disclose if particular services, including sewerage, are NOT connected to the property. In error, the vendor’s conveyancer deleted reference to sewerage in this part of the Vendors Statement which was conceded by the vendor to be incorrect and accepted by the Court as constituting a false statement that sewerage WAS connected. The vendor sought to excuse this false disclosure as a clerical error and relied upon the fact that a certificate from Yarra Valley Water indicated that sewerage was not connected. However provision of this certificate, which was described by the Judge as ‘opaque in the extreme’ in relation to sewerage service, could not overcome the false representation in the Statement itself that sewerage was connected. In this regard it was assumed throughout the judgment that reference to ‘connected’ meant that the property must be connected to an external sewerage system and a septic system could never satisfy the need to have sewerage ‘connected’.

The purchaser argued a second basis for avoiding the contract based on s 32D, the sub-section requiring disclosure of ‘notices’ affecting the land. Approximately 10 years before the subject sale and prior to the vendor becoming the owner of the property the Council had issued a permit for the installation of a septic system. The permit contained a number of conditions in relation to the ongoing inspection, maintenance and cleansing of the septic tank and was therefore claimed by the purchaser to be a ‘notice affecting the land’ that required disclosure pursuant to s 32D. Whilst there is no specific finding that these circumstances constituted a breach of s 32H at that point in the judgment where s 32H is discussed, the conclusion of the judgment refers to ‘contravention of the requirements of s 32(1), s 32D and s 32H’and so it may be concluded that failure to include the Planning Permit did in fact constitute failure to include a relevant ‘notice’.

The vendor argued that despite the conceded breach of s 32H and the contended breach of s 32D, the vendor ought to be allowed to rely on the ‘escape clause’ of s 32K and much of the judgment considers the applicability of this sub-section. The vendor bore the burden of establishing that the vendor had acted:

• honestly; and
• reasonably; and
• ought fairly be excused; and
• that the purchaser is substantially in as good a position notwithstanding the breaches.

The Court did not accept that the breach of s 32H had been caused by a ‘clerical error’ and was concerned that the vendor had not adduced evidence relating to the s 32 disclosure at the time the vendor had purchased the property some years before. Thus the ‘honestly’ burden was not satisfied.

Similar considerations militated against a conclusion that the vendor had satisfied the burden in relation to reasonableness and in the absence of honest and reasonable findings the Court was unable to conclude that the vendor ought fairly be excused.

It seemed fairly clear on the facts that a purchaser expecting a sewered property would not be in as good a position with a septic sewerage system, particularly one that carried obligations imposed by the Planning Permit.

For these reasons, the vendor’s defence failed.

The purchaser was entitled to end the contract, reclaim the deposit and claim legal costs.

Tip Box

Whilst written for Victoria this article has interest and relevance for practitioners in all states.

Failure to correctly disclose services entitles avoidance.

A Planning Permit may constitute a notice under s 32D.

Proving all the elements of s 32K is difficult.