ByLawyers News and Updates

Conveyancing To do lists – All states

by

The By Lawyers Conveyancing To do lists have been enhanced. As a result of recent feedback from a subscriber, space has been added next to the checkboxes in the Sale of Real Property and Purchase of Real Property guides. This extra space can be used to enter the date that a task has been completed, or any other note relevant to that particular aspect of the matter’s progression.

This small but important enhancement to the utility of these popular precedents will be extended to other guides in due course.

To do lists precedents are available in most By Lawyers guides. They reside within Folder A. Getting the matter underway on the matter plans and are an essential matter and risk management tool.

The Conveyancing To do lists chronologically set out the usual steps to be completed in a sale or purchase matter and allow team members working on the file to tick off each step as the matter progresses. This ensures that nothing important is missed. It also assists with seamless continuity when multiple people are working on a matter. These documents can be of particular assistance to team members who are unfamiliar with a particular area of law, or when assigning a task to more junior staff and assessing their progress or providing training.

To do lists can be printed out and attached to the file for manual completion, or ‘pinned’ to the top of the LEAP matter and competed electronically.

In order to pin a To do list to the top of the correspondence window in a LEAP matter, simply right-click on the precedent after it has been saved into the matter and select ‘Pin to top’. It will then stay at the very top of all correspondence in the matter as a handy reminder and reference tool.

By Lawyers love feedback from subscribers! If you have a suggestion or request, please don’t hesitate to get in contact: askus@bylawyers.com.au.

A full description – Conveyancing – NSW

by

The popular By Lawyers resources A full description of the purchase process in NSW and A full description of the sale process in NSW have recently been reviewed.

As a result of the review a new active hyperlink has been included in the sale version, leading to the Revenue NSW land tax page. This helps practitioners easily access the current threshold for the unimproved value of the land, to determine whether a client is liable for land tax. Land tax is generally only payable on investment properties, as there is a primary residence exemption.

These two helpful resources can be found in the Reference materials folder located at the top of the Sale of Real Property (NSW) and Purchase of Real Property (NSW) matter plans.  They provide a detailed summary of the typical progression of residential sale or purchase matter. Also available in the Reference materials folder is A brief explanation of the transition to E-conveyancing and how to get connected.

These resources, especially the two A full description… summaries, can provide valuable practical assistance for anyone new to conveyancing transactions, for practitioners and support staff  who only conduct conveyancing matters occasionally, or for team members inexperienced in conveyancing who have to step in at short notice in the unexpected absence of a colleague to look after a conveyancing file which is already on foot.

This review is part of by Lawyers continuing commitment to updating and enhancing our publications. All By Lawyers content is kept up to date by our dedicated editorial team and our specialist authors.

Land transfer duty waiver – VIC

by

The Victorian Government has announced a land transfer duty waiver for purchases of Victorian residential property with a dutiable value of up to $1 million.

For new residential properties, a 50% duty waiver applies. For existing residential properties and vacant residential land, a 25% duty waiver applies.

The applicable waiver is applied to the duty otherwise payable after all other eligible benefits, such as the first home buyer duty concession, the principal place of residence concession and the pensioner concession, have been taken into account.

The waiver can apply to the purchase of an investment property. There is no requirement to live in the property.

The waiver can be applied for more than once.

While a foreign person can obtain the waiver, it does not apply to foreign purchaser additional duty.

To be eligible for this waiver:

  • the purchase must be of residential property;
  • dutiable value must be $1 million or less;
  • the contract must be signed on or after 25 November 2020 and before 1 July 2021; and
  • the arrangement must be a bona fide purchase for adequate consideration i.e. not a gift.

The State Revenue Office will apply the waiver automatically if all eligibility criteria are met based on the information provided in the Digital Duties Form.

For further information, see the State Revenue Office page Land transfer duty waiver for residential property transactions of up to $1 million.

The By Lawyers Conveyancing – Purchase of real property (VIC) Guide has been updated accordingly.

1 January updates – All states

by

The By Lawyers has attended to the following 1 January updates required by legislation and practice in all relevant jurisdictions:

Land tax – Increases to threshold values – NSW

Land tax thresholds in NSW are indexed to rise on 1 January each year.

The 2021 threshold combined land value has increased to $755,000 for all liable land. Special trusts and non-concessional companies are excepted.

A marginal tax rate of 1.6% of the aggregate taxable value above the tax-free threshold plus $100 applies.

If the aggregate taxable value exceeds the premium rate threshold of $4,616,000 then $60,164 is payable plus a marginal tax rate of 2% over that amount.

All relevant commentary and precedents in the By Lawyers Conveyancing & Property and Trusts guides have been updated accordingly.

By Lawyers Contract for sale of land

The 2021 edition is now available on the Sale of real property matter plan in the Contract section.

Leases and subleases – NSW, VIC, QLD, SA and WA

The 2021 editions are now available on the Leases – Act for Lessor matter plan for each jurisdiction.

These additions form part of our continuing commitment to enhancing our content and helping our subscribers enjoy practice more.

Bankruptcy

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic temporary changes were made to bankruptcy law, increasing the debt threshold to $20,000 from $5,000 and increasing the time frame for a debtor to respond to a bankruptcy notice to 6 months from 21 days.

As of 1 January 2021 these changes have ceased and a new permanent bankruptcy threshold has been implemented.

The current debt requirement for bankruptcy is a minimum debt of $10,000 and the current time to respond to a bankruptcy notice is 21 days.

The By Lawyers Insolvency – Bankruptcy of individuals publication has been updated accordingly.

Always up to date

In addition to our annual 1 January updates, By Lawyers ensures our publications are updated for 1 June and any other statutory or regulated adjustments where necessary. We also promptly  update our content for all relevant legislative amendments and other legal developments throughout the year, in all jurisdictions.

The team at By Lawyers wishes everyone a prosperous and safe 2021.

Rescission – Consequences of rescission 2

by

By Russell Cocks, Solicitor
First published in the Law Institute Journal

A caveator’s arguments in support of the contract upon which his caveat was based were not well received by the court in the recent case of Damco Nominees P/L v Moxham [2012] VSC 79, with the result that the contract was found to have been terminated. Consequently the caveatable interest based on the contract no longer existed and the court ordered the caveat to be removed. It could reasonably be anticipated that final orders, when formulated, would have included a costs order against the purchaser, so the exercise would have been an expensive one.

The arguments made by the caveator are reasonably common and are discussed in 1001 Conveyancing Answers – indeed, they may have sourced from that publication – so the case serves as a guide as to how the court may regard those arguments in the future.

The facts

The caveator had entered into a contract to purchase the property for $1.9m. The property was a potential residential development site and the contract gave the purchaser nearly one year to complete, with a view to allowing the purchaser to seek planning approval et cetera, a reasonably common scenario. The contract was not in the standard form commonly in use but rather was in a form specifically created by the solicitor for the vendor. Whilst not all of the terms of the contract are recited in the judgment, it is possible to conclude that the contract adopted many of the standard conditions, some with subtle changes, and added further conditions. Thus the contract included ‘general condition 40’ whereas the standard contract only has 28 general conditions.

This issue formed the first point of contention between the parties in that the caveator claimed to have signed an earlier contract in standard form and that the ‘second’ contract had only been signed one month later for the purpose of ‘cleaning up’ the ‘first’ contract. The second contract was vaguely attacked on the grounds of ‘unconscionability’ but the court gave short shrift to this argument, partly because to have accepted those arguments would have entirely undermined the caveator’s defence of the caveat as that defence was entirely based on the rights said to arise from the second contract. Thus the dispute was limited to the second, non-standard contract.

Nomination

The first indication that the purchaser might be in ‘trouble’ came two months prior to the date for settlement. The purchaser asked the vendor to give a second mortgage for 10% of the purchase price, but the vendor declined. One month prior to settlement the purchaser notified the vendor that he intended to nominate an associated company. The contract included a general condition setting out a nomination procedure involving submission of a deed and payment of a fee. The purchaser did not submit a deed in accordance with the general condition and objected to payment of the fee. Here the purchaser adopted two arguments set out in 1001 Conveyancing Answers.

The purchaser claimed not to be bound by the nomination provisions of the contract as the purchaser was nominating pursuant to its ‘common law right’. The vendor argued that no such right existed in this case as ‘the contract contained a complete code for nomination’. The point does not appear to have been argued in detail and no cases supporting the common law right are cited in the judgment, however Mukhtar AsJ was inclined to accept the vendor’s argument. However this is not authority to support the proposition that the standard form contract contains such a code. This contract was not in standard form and general condition 31 setting out the nomination procedure specifically stated ‘Nomination only under this condition’, whereas the standard contract merely provides that ‘the purchaser may nominate’.

The second attack on the nomination process in the contract related to the fee. Section 42(3) Property Law Act prohibits the imposition by a vendor on a purchaser of ‘any costs and expenses’ other than those arising from a default. The standard form contract does not provide for a fee for nomination and an attempt by a vendor to impose such a fee on the purchaser as a precondition to a nomination could be met with this s 42(3) prohibition. However this particular contract included as part of the specified nomination process an obligation by the nominee to pay the fee. By this method the vendor sidestepped the prohibition as the fee was not imposed on the purchaser. Such a fee could not be enforced by the vendor against the nominee, who is not a party to the contract, but failure by the nominee to pay the fee would give the vendor the right, as against the purchaser, to refuse the nomination.

Nomination is a common event in Victorian conveyancing. The approach of the drafters of the standard contract was to keep it as simple as possible. Therefore s 42(3) applies to the standard contract. That does not prevent individual vendors imposing a different nomination regime, as was done in this case.

Default notice

The purchaser failed to settle and the vendor issued a notice. It is fair to say that the notice was more detailed than the standard one page notice usually employed and revealed that considerable care had been taken in drafting. In addition to interest, it claimed costs on default, which were specified in the contract as $385, and costs on rescission of $1,100, including a courier fee for personal service. The notice was unsuccessfully attacked on a number of fronts:

  1. that it had been served on the nominee as well as the purchaser;
  2. that it contained an incorrect arithmetic addition resulting in an error of $310;
  3. that the notice claimed ‘proper legal costs’ rather than ‘reasonable costs’ referred to in the contract;
  4. that the $1,100 costs claimed in respect of the notice were excessive. Extensive evidence was called on this point and Mukhtar AsJ was satisfied that, in this case, that amount was a reasonable reflection of the costs arising from the purchaser’s failure to settle;
  5. that the interest claimed was calculated on the balance of purchase price plus adjustments, GST and default interest agreed to be paid in return for an extension of time. This failed as the judge held that this was the amount, however constituted, that was owed by the purchaser to the vendor at the time the notice was issued and the vendor was entitled to interest on that amount;
  6. that the termination condition in the contract incorrectly referred to the ‘buyer’s’ costs. This was rejected as an obvious error. It should have said ‘seller’s’.

The court concluded by proclaiming ‘the caveator’s claim as baseless’, having previously described the attacks on the notice as designed to ‘expose compositional errors’ and one of the letters from the solicitor for the purchaser to the solicitor for the vendor as ‘bumptious’. All in all – NOT WELL RECEIVED.

Tip Box

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

1 July updates – All states

by

1 July updates are a big focus for By Lawyers. This is because many Commonwealth and state legislative instruments provide for scheduled indexing of relevant monetary amounts and increases in government fees and charges.

These updates can include court filing fees, lodgement fees for property dealings, minimum weekly compensation amounts for Workers Compensation and various fines.

By Lawyers always monitor these changes for our subscribers. Each year we ensure that our publications are amended where necessary to reflect 1 July updates.

We also monitor and update for legislative indexing and increases which occur regularly at other times. These include 1 January changes and also other specific dates prescribed by some statutes.

The 1 July updates have been applied, or are in the process of being applied as they get released, to the following By Lawyers publications:

  • Conveyancing and Property;
  • Criminal;
  • Litigation;
  • Family;
  • Estates;
  • Injuries; and
  • Employment.

Stay updated with By Lawyers guides and precedents. Happy new financial year!

Lodgments via Sympli – NSW

by

Transfer and duty lodgments

The range of lodgments via Sympli that are available in NSW has expanded.

Sympli has now been approved by NSW Land Registry Services and Revenue NSW for transfer and duty lodgments.

The following documents can now be lodged through Sympli:

Stand alone transactions 

  • Caveat
  • Withdrawal of Caveat
  • Priority Notice
  • Priority Notice Extension
  • Priority Notice Withdrawal
  • Mortgage
  • Discharge of Mortgage
  • Notice of Death
  • Transmission Application to Executor

Financial settlement transactions

  • Transfer
  • Mortgage
  • Discharge of Mortgage

The By Lawyers Conveyancing and Property guides for NSW provide property law practitioners with practical commentary and useful precedents for all aspects of the conveyancing process.

Remote signing – All states

by

Practical issues relating to the remote signing of documents such as agreements, deeds, wills and powers of attorney by companies and individuals

Remote signing of documents has become an important issue for solicitors and their clients due to the coronavirus pandemic. Face to face meetings are now largely excluded meaning clients are unable to attend at their lawyer’s office to sign documents.

Documents which must be signed need to be mailed or emailed to clients and then signed remotely.

Signatures

Signatures establish the identity of the person signing and their intention to create legal relations.  It is this intention indicated by placing their mark on a document that gives it its legal character or functionality, not the mark itself. There is no real distinction made at law between handwritten signatures, marks or electronic signatures. Signing a document electronically might be done by typing one’s name, pasting an image of one’s usual signature, using a stylus or finger on a touchscreen or using e-signing software.

Agreements

An agreement can be in electronic form and executed electronically, if witnessing is not required.

Most contracts, such as the contract for the sale of land, do not require a witness.

If witnessing is required, it can be done electronically provided the witness is present when the deed is signed. If witnessing is not possible this way due to virus related isolation, then the counterparty will need to agree to another method.

Electronic conveyancing requirements

A Client Authorisation Form may be electronically signed, subject to specific jurisdictional requirements. Whilst the Verification of Identity Standard requires a face-to-face in person interview, compliance with the standard is not mandatory and taking ‘reasonable steps’ to verify the identity of the client, such as by video meeting, is sufficient.

The By Lawyers Contract for Sale of Land in NSW and in VIC allows for electronic exchange and electronic settlement in compliance with electronic transactions legislation and the Verification of Identity Standard rules.

Deeds

Deeds usually require signatures to be witnessed and to be in writing.

An electronically-signed deed that is immediately printed out on paper may satisfy the common law requirement for paper with the first printed version being the original deed rather than a copy. However, parties to a transaction are better served to agree in advance to the acceptability of a particular form of deed and its electronic signature. Similarly, checking before execution  the requirements of organisations such as registries with whom the deeds must be registered will ensure their acceptability.

As mentioned above, witnessing can be electronic provided the witness is present when the deed is signed. If this is not possible then the counterparty will need to agree to another method.

An acceptable method might be by video attendance of the party’s lawyer who on return of the signed deed certifies it to be identical to the one submitted for signing and that the signing was witnessed by video.

Wills

The issue with executing wills remotely given social distancing, is the availability of two witnesses who are not themselves beneficiaries.

Where the required two disinterested witnesses are not available, the will may be executed informally, by the testator, who after signing it, returns it to their solicitor with a statement that they intend it to be their last will and testament. Accompanied by an affidavit explaining the signing in the prevailing circumstances, perhaps with video witnessing, a grant of probate of the informal will is likely to be made if required. Once the pandemic ends the will can be properly signed.

Powers of attorney

A general power of attorney does not need a witness and can be signed remotely.

However, an enduring power of attorney must be witnessed by a prescribed witness – usually the principal’s solicitor – who must also certify that they explained the effect of the document to the principal and that they appeared to understand it. On that basis remote signing is technically impossible.

Where a face to face meeting – even one at an outdoor location with appropriate distancing – is not possible, the document could be sent to the client by post or email for their written or electronic signature. Their lawyer could hold a video conference with the client and explain the document and see it signed by their client. When returned the lawyer can certify that they gave the explanation and were satisfied as to the principal’s understanding, but whilst unable to personally witness the document being signed, they witnessed the signing in video conference.

In this practical way the power is likely to be acceptable in most cases where there is no issue raised.

Where this approach is taken, the risks that the document may not be effective need to be explained to the client and appropriate file notes made.

Appointments of enduring guardian and Advance medical directives

The same witnessing and certification procedures apply to these instruments as for enduring powers of attorney. Similar practical, emergency measures might be undertaken.

Company execution

It is arguable whether a company can execute a document electronically under s 127 of the Corporations Act 2001.

However, in this busy world of commerce it is common for documents to be signed by duly authorised officers, or one director, or by a duly appointed attorney.

Generally

The ongoing response to Coronavirus means that emergency measures are rapidly being introduced to modify the usual signing and witnessing requirements. For example, some courts will currently accept unsigned affidavits on the basis that they will later be formally executed if necessary. The website of each court should be referred to as required.

 

Keep up-to-date with our latest COVID-19 News & Updates

FIDS – Conveyancing -TAS

by

Foreign Investor Duty Surcharge (FIDS) is increasing from 1 April 2020.

FIDS applies to acquisitions of residential or primary production property by a foreign person occurring on or after 1 July 2018. It is an additional amount of duty charged on the direct, or indirect, acquisition of residential or primary production property by any foreign person.

The increase applies from 1 April 2020. For transactions which are the result of a written agreement for sale entered into after 1 April 2020, FIDS is charged at:

  • 8% on the proportion of the dutiable value of residential property acquired by a foreign person; and
  • 1.5% on the proportion of the dutiable value of primary production property acquired by a foreign person.

The By Lawyers Purchase of Real Property (TAS) Guide has been updated in line with these changes.

Inspection – Right to inspect

by

By Russell Cocks

First published in the Law Institute Journal

Contracts for the sale of land are known as executory contracts, as there is a time delay between entering into the contract and final performance. Consequently, the condition of the property may change between contract and settlement and the contract will usually give the purchaser the right to inspect the property as settlement approaches.

The right to inspect the property prior to settlement has been General Condition 22 of the LIV. contract of sale since 2008 but is General Condition 29 of the 2019 version of that contract and provides:

The purchaser and/or another person authorised by the purchaser may inspect the property at any reasonable time during the 7 days preceding and including the settlement day.

This General Condition was the subject of close examination in the case of Mediratta v Clark [2019] VSC 685. The purchaser failed to settle and the vendor rescinded. The purchaser claimed that the vendor was not entitled to rescind as the vendor:

  • was in breach of GC 22 by refusing to permit the purchaser and/or a nominee of the purchaser to inspect the property; and
  • was in breach of an implied term by refusing to permit a valuer authorised by the purchaser to inspect the property.

The contract provided for an extended settlement period of 14 months but the purchaser, who had paid a 5% deposit, had not accepted the vendor’s invitation to complete the Duties Online form, had not submitted a Transfer (paper settlement), nor a statement of adjustments. Days from settlement the purchaser requested an extension, which was denied. In those circumstances, the vendor refused to provide the agent with keys to allow the purchaser to inspect the property.

On the day that settlement was due the agent requested keys to allow a valuer to inspect the property. The vendor refused and issued a Default & Rescission Notice alleging failure to deliver the Transfer at least 10 days before settlement (GC 6) and failure to settle (GC 28). The vendor allowed the valuer to inspect within the 14-day default period but settlement did not take place prior to the expiration of the default period and the vendor regarded the contract as terminated. The purchaser requested an inspection after the expiration of the default period, but the vendor refused on the basis that the contract had been terminated and refused subsequent attempts to arrange a settlement.

The court considered the meaning of GC 22. The purchaser argued that the condition was wide enough to allow the purchaser to nominate a valuer to inspect the property for the purpose of obtaining finance. The vendor argued that the purpose of the condition was to allow the purchaser to establish whether the property was in ‘the state commensurate with the Vendor’s contractual obligation’. Derham AsJ traced the history of GC 22 and concluded that its purpose GC 22 is to allow a purchaser who is ready, willing and able to complete the contract to inspect the property for the purpose of being satisfied as to the condition of the property. It is not available to a purchaser who is not in a position to settle on the settlement day, nor for the purpose of valuation, particularly when the contract is not subject to finance.

The purchaser’s alternative argument was that, because it was a fundamental obligation of the purchaser to pay the balance due at settlement, the contract was subject to an implied condition that the vendor would co-operate with the purchaser to allow inspection of the property by a valuer. So much had been held in earlier cases but, as Derham AsJ pointed out, those contracts were subject to finance. Whilst acknowledging that a court might imply a general duty on the vendor to co-operate with the purchaser for the purpose of allowing the purchaser to satisfy the purchaser’s obligations pursuant to the contract, such an implied condition would not be ‘open-ended’. Citing a quote from Simcevski v Dixon [2017] VSC 197 His Honour confirmed that there ‘cannot be a duty to co-operate in bringing about something which a contract does not require to happen’. This contract required the purchaser to settle, it did not require the purchaser to obtain finance. Even if a duty to co-operate by making the property available for valuation were to be implied, it ‘would be limited in time and would not enable inspection at the 12th Hour’.

The purchaser’s final argument was that the vendor’s conduct was unconscientious. This was dismissed on the basis that the vendor was entitled to refuse inspection as the purchaser was in breach of GC 6 and had failed to sign the Duties Online form.

Tip Box

•GC 22 (now 29) entitles the purchaser to a pre-settlement inspection.

•If the contract is subject to finance, the vendor must co operate.

•If not subject to finance, the vendor’s duty is limited.

Connect with us