By Russell Cocks, Solicitor

First published in the Law Institute Journal

Off-the-plan sales are a common feature of Victorian conveyancing. The fact that the contract cannot be settled until the plan of subdivision is registered at Land Victoria means that the settlement date is uncertain. Sunset conditions in off-the-plan contracts are meant to bring some certainty to the settlement date.

Section 9AE(2) Sale of Land Act allows a purchaser to end an off-the-plan contract if the plan of subdivision is not registered within 18 months of the date of the contract. This is consumer protection legislation designed to allow a purchaser to end a contract which may have, objectively, gone too long. A purchaser may not, 18 months after signing a contract, still wish to proceed with the purchase. However, it is important to recognise that this is a right, not an obligation so the purchaser may choose to continue with the contract, and that the statutory right is limited to the purchaser and does not extend to the vendor.

The Act recognises that the 18-month sunset period is a statutory default period and allows the parties to agree to a different period, however it has been held that the vendor cannot unilaterally alter that sunset period (Solid Investments Aust. P/L v. Clifford [2010] VSCA 59). Contracts often provide a longer sunset period, sometimes up to 60 months, and regularly give to the vendor the contractual right to end the contract, in addition to the purchaser’s statutory right, which cannot be removed.

The purchaser has very little control over the plan approval process and must adopt a largely passive role, awaiting the happy news (hopefully) from the vendor that the plan has been approved and that settlement is due 7,10, 14 or 21 days after approval, depending upon the formula adopted in the contract. On the other hand, responsibility for obtaining approval of the plan falls almost entirely upon the vendor and this, by default, means that the vendor is able to influence the timing of registration and hence the time for settlement. If only the purchaser had the right to terminate if the plan is not registered within the sunset period, then the conduct of the vendor would be less likely to be particularly significant, but the practice of granting the vendor the contractual right to terminate if the sunset date passes opens up the possibility that the vendor can affect the outcome of the contract by action, or more particularly, inaction.

By definition, there will be a delay between contract and settlement, sometimes a considerable delay. As a consequence, market forces may have had an effect on the value of the property and in a rising market, as we have enjoyed for two decades or more, this means that the property is likely to be worth more, sometimes remarkedly more, when the sunset period expires. The temptation for the vendor to allow the sunset date to pass and then terminate the contract may in such circumstances be strong as the vendor will then remain the owner of a property which is much more valuable than the contract price. The flip side is that the purchaser misses out on a property that they have long waited for.

New South Wales has recently responded to a number of examples of vendors ending contracts in these circumstances by requiring the vendor to seek consent, either from the purchaser or the Court, before ending such a contract. Victoria, on the other hand, has relied on a firmly recognised obligation of “best endeavours” on the part of the vendor to ensure that vendors are not able to unscrupulously take advantage of the unexpected delay in obtaining approval of the plan of subdivision beyond the sunset date. This obligation was firmly established in Etna v. Arif [1999] VSCA 99 where, upon it being proven that the vendor had effectively stopped trying to get the plan approved during the sunset period, the Court order specific performance of the contract notwithstanding that the sunset period had expired when the vendor finally did obtain approval.

This view was confirmed in Jessup v. Fremder [2001] VSC 100 where a purchaser was able to obtain an order for specific performance even where no particular sunset date was referred to in the contract, the Court finding that a ‘reasonable period’ was to be implied. Joseph Street P/L v. Tan [2012] VSCA 113 held that a vendor might even be required to enter into a s.173 Agreement to secure registration of the plan so that the sunset period could be satisfied, notwithstanding that construction (if applicable) had not been completed. In an unreported interlocutory judgment in April 2018 the Supreme Court imposed an injunction on a vendor who sought to terminate upon the expiration of the sunset period where the purchaser alleged that the vendor had failed to use best endeavours to obtain approval of the plan.

These decisions do not mean that a vendor will never be able to rely on the expiration of the sunset period to terminate, but they do indicate that the vendor bears a heavy burden to prove to the Court that the vendor has used best endeavours and that the sunset period has expired notwithstanding those best endeavours.

Tip Box

•purchasers have a statutory right to avoid if the sunset period expires

•vendors may have a contractual right to avoid, but must use best endeavours to achieve registration