ByLawyers News and Updates

Working order condition

by

By Russell Cocks

First published in the Law Institute Journal
A purchaser pursuant to a contract of sale of land may sometimes request that a ‘working order’ condition be added to the contract

Parties to a contract of sale of land are free to negotiate the terms of their contract and include whatever conditions they agree to. In the context of the standard contract of sale of land, such an agreement will be recorded by way of a Special Condition added to the 28 General Conditions. Such Special Conditions usually provide that all fittings, fixtures and chattels included in the sale are to be in working order as at the date of settlement. The focus of the purchaser is usually on such items as heating and cooling equipment, hot water services, swimming pool equipment and even stoves and lighting.

Because there is no General Condition applicable to this situation, the wording used often varies between contracts and the first difficulty is to determine the exact meaning and application of the Special Condition. No Court has had cause to interpret such a Special Condition, so no assistance can be gained from decided cases and as Working Order conditions are often drafted by estate agents on an ad hoc basis, interpretation is often a difficult task.

Such Special Conditions effectively seek to amend General Condition 24 of the standard contract, which provides that the vendor is obliged to deliver the property (which includes fittings & fixtures and arguably includes the chattels listed in the contract) to the purchaser at settlement in the same condition that it was in on the day of sale, fair wear and tear excepted. A Working Order Special Condition seeks to amend this general condition in two ways:

  1. General Condition 24 does NOT require the vendor to improve the property after contract, merely maintain it. Something that was not working on the day of sale does not have to be working at settlement, as it complies with General Condition 24 by being in the same condition at settlement as it was upon sale.

A Working Order Special Condition will require the vendor to improve an item that was not working on the day of sale, unless the vendor specifically excludes that item. Thus, an air conditioning unit that was not working on the day of sale must be repaired (or replaced) by the vendor prior to settlement, unless the vendor specifically excludes that unit from the Working Order Special Condition.

  1. The ‘fair wear & tear’ exception in General Condition 24 will be overridden by a Working Order Special Condition, such that the vendor will have an absolute obligation to have all aspects of the property in working order at settlement, irrespective of the cause of the deterioration. An air conditioning unit that was working at contract but stops working before settlement is an example of fair wear and tear, but under a Working Order Special Condition there is usually no provision for fair wear and tear and the vendor would be obliged to repair or replace the air conditioning unit prior to settlement.

Consequences of Breach

General Condition 24(a) provides a limited right to compensation for breach, but that right relates to a breach flowing from a failure to deliver the property in a significant sense, not the breach of a relatively insignificant provision such as a Working Order condition. (see April 2019 Property column) Therefore, the purchaser’s remedy for a breach of a Working Order condition is to rely on common law rights flowing from the breach and to sue the vendor AFTER settlement for consequential loss. There is certainly nothing in the standard contract that will allow the purchaser to refuse to settle for breach of a Working Order condition, or to claim a reduction in the purchase price. Even if the Working Order condition is framed as a warranty by the vendor, the common law remedy for breach of warranty is by way of damages to be pursued after settlement.

In those circumstances, a Working Order condition may be more trouble than it is worth. It reflects an unrealistic purchaser expectation that a second-hand property will be in an as-new condition at settlement and it simply creates disputation at the time-poor end of the transaction. Given that the purchaser’s right is limited to proceedings after settlement, the prospect of a pyrrhic victory looms large.

Conveyancing needs to be a smooth process, for both the clients and their representatives. Adding additional speedbumps to that process is not in the interest of either the clients or their representatives.

Tip Box

•Working Order conditions may be added to contracts

•Vendor may need to improve the property

•Purchaser can only sue after settlement

Water rights – QLD

by

A new chapter on water rights has been added to the By Lawyers reference guide 1001 Conveyancing Answers for Queensland.

The new content covers water allocations, water licences, overland flow, water trading and searching the register. Note that the Registrar of Land Titles is also the Registrar of Water Allocations.

By Lawyers do not currently offer a full commentary on the increasingly complex and valuable rights attaching to the usage, allocation  and trading of water, but the new content in 1001 Conveyancing Answers assists as a starting point for Queensland practitioners who are called upon to advise clients in relation to the rights attaching to water in various circumstances, whether in the context of property transactions, property development, or stand-alone water trading transactions.

Helpful interactive links are also provided in the new content to allow users to quickly access the detailed information available on the Business Queensland website.

For LEAP users, the new matter types now available in Queensland for Rural Law/Agribusiness, which include Water licences and Water allocations, contain all relevant Land Registry forms relating to water rights. These new matter types are available via Other Areas of Law in the Browse tab from within any LEAP matter.

Nomination and the Australian Consumer Law

by

By Russell Cocks, Solicitor

First published in the Law Institute Journal
Is the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) relevant to the contractual right to nominate?

This column has considered the purchaser’s right to nominate an additional or substitute transferee on a number of occasions in the past and has also considered the impact of the ACL on residential conveyancing, which is essentially a consumer transaction. This month’s column specifically considers the application of the ACL to the purchaser’s right to nominate.

Nomination

Conventionally, contracts for the sale of land in Victoria include a condition giving the purchaser the right to nominate. General Condition 18 of the Law Institute contract expresses that right in very general terms, without limitation in relation to the form of nomination or time for nomination. Parties are free to negotiate the terms of their agreement and so the parties may, by Special Condition, ‘agree’ to a more limited right to nominate, including limitations as to the nominee, time for nomination and form of nomination.

A nomination by the purchaser creates a second contract, between the purchaser and nominee, but this is NOT a contract for the sale of land, rather it is an assignment of the purchaser’s rights under the contract of sale of land to the nominee. Traditionally, this is a doc-lite contract in that the rights and obligations of the parties are succinctly recorded with no written agreement as to what is to happen if either party does not wish to proceed with the nomination. It is essentially an assignment of the purchaser’s rights to the nominee, a legal relationship recognised by s.134 Property Law Act. Consideration for this contract may be found in the release of the purchaser from obligations under the contract of sale of land and the assumption by the nominee of rights under that contract. Importantly, the vendor is NOT a party to such a nomination or assignment and the vendor remains entitled to enforce the contract against the named purchaser. The nomination acts as the purchaser’s authority to the vendor to transfer the property to the nominee in fulfillment of the vendor’s duties under the contract.

The contractual right to nominate is an important ‘escape hatch’ for a purchaser who finds that, due to changed circumstances, the purchaser is not able to complete the contract. This is particularly so in an off-the-plan environment where the contract contemplates an extended contract period during which time the purchaser is exposed to changing circumstances.

Australian Consumer Law

The ACL is designed to protect consumers. A purchaser in a residential contract of sale of land is a consumer for this purpose.

Section 20 proscribes “unconscionable conduct” which is an equitable concept developed by the Courts in cases commencing with Amadio in 1983 and which continues to develop to changing circumstances. Conduct will be unconscionable if one party to a contract is at a “special disadvantage” and the other party “takes advantage” of that situation. Some purchaser in residential contracts may satisfy this test but inequality of bargaining power alone may not be sufficient to establish unconscionable conduct.

Section 23 proscribes “unfair contract terms” in standard form consumer contracts. Factors to be considered in determining whether terms are unfair are:

  • inequality of bargaining power;
  • whether the contract is prepared in anticipation of the transaction, rather than in response to the transaction; and
  • whether the other party had a real ability to negotiate the terms.

Contracts for the sale of land are created as “standard form contracts”. Certainly, the parties are free to negotiate amendment to the terms of such contracts but, in practice, this does not happen. The vendor or vendor’s agent presents the standard form contract to the consumer and it is signed, without negotiation. Various factors: such as trust, lack of knowledge and unequal bargaining power contribute to this outcome but the result is a standard form contract in the vast majority of cases. The removal of the right to nominate, or the imposition of onerous conditions in relation to nomination, are likely to be unfair terms in these circumstances and liable to be unenforceable against the purchaser.

Compensation for loss

by

By Russell Cocks, Solicitor

First published in the Law Institute Journal

What are the consequences of a breach of a contract of sale of land? Is it compensation or damages? Is there a difference?

This is a significant question in the context of the standard contract of sale of land when dealing with the consequences of a breach of that contract by one of the parties to the contract. General Condition 25(a) provides that a party in breach must pay to the other party “compensation for any reasonably foreseeable loss”. This article is not concerned with calculating the quantum of any such claim, but rather determining when such a payment must be made. Specifically, can the innocent party seek to adjust the balance payable at settlement on the basis of an entitlement to “compensation”?

It is common for a vendor to claim that the purchaser’s breach has caused the vendor to suffer significant “loss”. Putting aside for the moment whether the loss is reasonably foreseeable and, indeed, was reasonably foreseeable as at the date of the contract, can the vendor demand that the purchaser pay those losses at settlement? Likewise, can a purchaser who establishes loss flowing from the vendor’s breach, difficult though that may be, demand that the vendor compensates the purchaser by way of a reduction in the amount payable at settlement?

It is fair to say that many vendors, and some purchasers, do seek to adjust the amount payable at settlement by a party in breach, however the suggestion that one party may unilaterally adjust the amount payable pursuant to the contract at settlement to recover alleged loss is not supported by the contract. The contract allows the innocent party to claim “compensation”; it does not support a claim for “damages” which is a common law remedy for breach of contract that may be pursued AFTER completion of the contract.

A right to compensation has traditionally been distinguished from a right to damages – King v Poggioli [1923] HCA 11. Compensation is a remedy that entitles a purchaser to abate the purchase price where the vendor breaches the contract by failing to deliver the whole of the property contracted to be sold, either as a result of a defect in the physical attributes of the property or the vendor’s interest in, or title to, the property. (Voumard: The Sale of Land [7320])

General Condition 25(a) therefore creates a very limited contractual remedy for breach of contract. It is a remedy limited to a claim by the purchaser seeking to abate the purchase price consequent upon a significant physical or legal defect in the property. It does not justify a claim for consequential loss, although the purchaser might pursue such a claim for damages for consequential loss after settlement. General Condition 25(a) does not support a contractual claim for “compensation” by the vendor at all, although the vendor, like the purchaser, might pursue a claim for damages for consequential loss flowing from the purchaser’s breach of contract after settlement.

General Condition 25(b) gives the vendor a contractual right to claim interest as a result of a breach of the contract and General Condition 26 sets out how that interest is to be calculated. As interest is payable “on any money owing under this contract” this contractual right to claim interest is limited to the vendor, as only the vendor is owed money under the contract.

In summary, the purchaser’s contractual right following a breach by the vendor is to compensation pursuant to GC.25(a) and the vendor contractual right following a breach by the purchaser is to interest pursuant to GC. 25(b). Both parties have additional common law rights for consequential losses flowing from a breach of contract, but those common law rights must be pursued after settlement and do not justify an adjustment of the amount payable at settlement.

The contractual right of the parties to a contract for the sale of land that adopts the standard General Conditions to claim an adjustment of the amount due at settlement consequent on a breach of the contract by the other party is limited as set out above. However, a party in default faces the possibility of proceedings after settlement to recover damages for breach of contract and therefore it is sensible for the parties to seek to compromise any such claim at settlement. Whether the breach is by the vendor or the purchaser, the innocent party should provide details of losses suffered by the innocent party as a result of the breach and which were reasonably foreseeable to the parties as at the date of the contract. The party in default might then agree to compromise the claim on the basis that a claim for consequential loss after settlement will involve both parties in significant additional expenditure and ought to be avoided. However, the innocent party cannot seek an adjustment of the amount payable at settlement or seek to delay settlement until the dispute is resolved. The show must go on.

Sunset clause – Vendor ending a contract – Purchaser’s consent or court order required

by

By Russell Cocks, Solicitor

First published in the Law Institute Journal

Retrospective amendments to the Sale of Land Act will substantially limit a vendor’s ability to end a residential off-the-plan contract.

The Sale of Land Amendment Bill 2018 was expected to pass Parliament in late 2018 but was delayed by the Victorian State election. It is expected to be passed early in 2019 and will require vendors who wish to end residential off-the-plan contracts pursuant to sunset clauses to either obtain the purchasers consent, or an order from the Supreme Court.

The changes do not affect the purchaser’s current statutory right to end the contract if the plan of subdivision is not approved by the sunset date. This purchaser right is created by s.9AF (2) Sale of Land Act and allows the purchaser to end what is currently known as a “prescribed contract” (but which will be known as a residential off-the-plan contract when the amending Act is passed) if the plan of subdivision is not approved within 18 months of the contract date. The contract may specify another period, but if no other period is specified, the default period is 18 months.

It is common for vendors to also include a contractual right for the vendor to terminate the contract if approval is not obtained by the sunset date. There has been a perception that vendors were seeking to use this contractual right to unfairly end contracts in a rising market and these changes are designed to prevent such outcomes.

Rescission in accordance with the Act

By s.12(1) of the Amendment Act, new s.10A Sale of Land Act provides that if a sunset clause in a contract allows the vendor to rescind the contract, then rescission must be in accordance with the Act and s.10C overcomes any inconsistent contractual provision. Section 2(1) of the Amendment Act provides that s.12(1) is taken to have come into effect on 23 August 2018.

Purchaser’s consent

Section 12(1) also introduces s.10B Sale of Land Act which prohibits a vendor from relying on a sunset clause unless the vendor obtains the purchaser’s written consent to any such rescission. By virtue of new s.54(1), s.10B applies to all residential off-the-plan contracts entered into and in force before commencement of s.12(1) (23 August 2018) unless proceedings concerning the sunset clause had been commenced before that date.

A vendor seeking to obtain the purchaser’s consent must give the purchaser 28 days notice setting out the reason that the vendor proposes to rescind, the reason for the delay in registration of the plan and advice that the purchaser is not obliged to consent to the proposed rescission.

Court order

By s.12(2) of the Amending Act, new s.10D Sale of Land Act provides that the vendor may apply to the Supreme Court for an order permitting the vendor to rescind a contract pursuant to a sunset clause. By s.2(2) of the Amending Act, s.12(2) comes into operation on the day after the day on which the Amending Act receives Royal Assent. By virtue of new s.54(3), s.10D applies to all residential off-the-plan contracts entered into and in force on the day after the day that the Act receives Royal Assent, unless proceedings concerning the sunset clause had been commenced before that date.

The Court must consider a wide variety of matters relating to the contract and the property, including increase in value and, if an Order is made, may include compensation to the purchaser. The vendor is liable for the purchaser’s costs.

Notice

New s.10E requires residential off-the-plan contracts that include a sunset clause to include a Notice setting out that the:

    • vendor may give a notice proposing to rescind the contract;
    • purchaser may consent to rescission, but is not obliged to consent;
    • vendor may apply to the Court for an order permitting rescission;
    • Court may make such an order.

This requirement applies to all contracts entered into after the day that the Act receives Royal Assent.

Tip Box

•Sunset clauses must be exercised in accordance with the Act.

•Purchaser’s consent or a court order is required.

•Residential off-the-plan contracts need additional disclosure.

Sale of land amendments

by

By Russell Cocks, Solicitor

 First published in the Law Institute Journal

The Bill, soon to be an Act, that amended SUNSET CLAUSES also introduces other amendments to

Terms Contracts

Terms contracts were an important method of funding property acquisition in the mid-twentieth century when mortgage funding was not as available as it is in the current de-regulated finance market. Many working people were unable to obtain traditional finance and many a family home can be traced to a terms contract paid off over a number of years. The Sale of Land Act was in fact introduced in 1962 to regulate this method of sale, as it always had the potential to facilitate sharp practices.

Essentially, a terms contract allows a purchaser to take possession of the property and pay the purchase price over an extended period of time, such that the property provides both a home and an investment. However, in recent years various sharp operators have been using terms contracts to lure unsuspecting, and generally under-funded, purchasers in outer metropolitan and regional areas into entering into terms contracts that were doomed to fail and cause those purchasers extensive losses. A report by the Consumer Law Action Centre highlighted these dangers and has resulted in s.29EA and subsequent sections prohibiting terms contracts of residential land at a sale price of less than a prescribed amount (expected to be $400,000). Section 55 gives VCAT jurisdiction to review existing terms contracts on fairness grounds.

Rent-to-Buy

A variation on the unfair terms contract is a rent-to-buy arrangement whereby the purchaser takes possession of the property on a rental basis with an option to purchase the property at a future time. Again, these schemes invariably fail as a result of the inability of the purchaser to manage the financial obligations imposed by these arrangements, with the result being substantial loss for the purchaser. Section 29WA prohibits rent-to-buy arrangements, with limited exceptions, and s.56 gives VCAT jurisdiction to review existing arrangements on fairness grounds.

Land Banking

A third scheme that has involved substantial losses for unsuspecting consumers have been land banking schemes, which involve consumers buying a small interest in a large parcel of land purchased by developers with the hope that the land will become suitable for development at some time in the, often distant, future. When sold to the purchaser via an option arrangement the purchaser’s deposit is not protected and there have been many examples of the arrangements collapsing and purchasers losing their investment.

Section 29WH prohibits the sale of options in land banking schemes unless the scheme is a registered scheme or the deposit is held in a trust account and provides that the deposit must be returned to the purchaser if the event triggering the option does not occur within 5 years.

There is no provision for review of current schemes.

Past Use

From time to time a purchaser will complain that the property that has been purchased has “prior history”, such as a sensational death or inappropriate use, such as a drug lab. Such history is in the nature of a quality defect and subject to the principle of caveat emptor, meaning that in the absence of fraud or common law misrepresentation, the purchaser is obliged to proceed with the contract.

Section 12 Sale of Land Act presently creates an offence (but not a purchaser’s right) in relation to false, misleading or deceptive representations and prohibits fraudulent concealment of “material facts”. Section 14 of the amending Act substitutes “knowingly” for “fraudulently” in s.12(d), thereby reducing the onus of proof and making it an offence to knowingly conceal material facts. New section 12A allows the Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria to publish guidelines designed to assist vendors and agents to understand what is meant by “material facts” and presumably such matters as sensational deaths and drug lab use will be included in such guidelines.

However, making non-disclosure by an owner or agent of such matters an offence will not, of itself, give a purchaser a right to rescission or damages. The basic principle of caveat emptor will still apply.

Tip Box

Whilst written for Victoria this article has interest and relevance for practitioners in all states the Sale of Land Act, notably in relation to terms contracts.

Adjustment for cladding agreements

by

By Russell Cocks, Solicitor

First published in the Law Institute Journal

Recent amendments to the Local Government Act mean that solicitors acting for buyers and sellers of real estate will need to take into account any charges recorded against the property relating to funding for cladding rectification.

Recent concern about defective cladding used in the construction of high-rise residential buildings has resulted in the government adopting a legislative solution that may provide some solace to the unfortunate unit owners who are faced with massive rectification costs, but it also has an impact on third-party purchasers of such properties. After a lengthy inquiry in relation to the cause and consequences of the defective cladding material it became clear that any solution that depended upon allocation of blame would involve years of legal proceedings and an immediate solution had to be found to allow the owners of units affected by the defective cladding to move on with their lives.

Responsibility for administration of the solution has been allocated to municipal Councils, with a new Part 8B inserted into the Local Government Act. This authorises Councils to enter into a ‘cladding rectification agreement’ with the owner of rateable land (or an Owners Corporation) and a lending body, presumably a conventional financier. Council may also be the lending body, but it is difficult to imagine, in the short term at least, that Councils will assume this entrepreneurial role. Thus, the standard agreement will be tripartite, between the owner (or Owners Corporation), the Council and a lender.

The agreement will provide that the lender will advance the funds to pay the rectification works and Council will levy a charge on the land to recover the loan advance, interest and fees associated with the levy by instalment over a period of not less than 10 years. Thus, in a perfect world, the owner (or Owners Corporation) will be happy as the cladding will have been rectified, the lender will be happy as the loan, plus interest will have been repaid and Council will be happy as it will have charged an administrative fee. But we do not live in a perfect world.

Owners will still feel aggrieved by being required to bear the cost of rectifying a building defect, lenders will inevitably face some bad debt scenarios and Councils will be regarded as the bad guys by all other parties simply because Councils put the deals together. How dissatisfied owners relate to each other in an Owners Corporation environment is another can of worms and time may reveal that the solution turns out to be worse than the problem.

Given that Councils must be satisfied about the amounts due pursuant to any rates, taxes or levies and any mortgage relating to the land before entering into an agreement, it is difficult to see, particularly in an Owners Corporation environment that requires 75%-member approval, these agreements being particularly easy to set up, let alone administer for 10 years. The Act is silent as to whom the loan amount is paid and when repayments are to be made to the lender, presumably leaving it to each particular agreement to deal with these ‘site specific’ details.

However, the property lawyers concern is not so much as to how the agreements will work between the original parties, but how they will affect departing and incoming owners. Presuming that a 10-year levy has been struck, with quarterly instalments link to normal rates, what are the duties of the vendor and expectation of the purchaser in relation to the treatment of the amounts due under the levy?

The Act (s.185L) treats the cladding rectification levy as a “service charge”. Section 162 authorises the imposition of a service charge and s.185L(6) requires a cladding rectification charge to be paid by instalments. A vendor is obliged to disclose statutory charges pursuant to s.32A(b) Sale of Land Act and also charges “for which the purchaser will become liable in consequence of the sale” pursuant to s.32A(c). Disclosure of current charges (and any arrears) may be achieved by annexing a rate notice, a land information certificate or giving a not-more-than estimate, but the vendor is also obliged to disclose future liabilities due under the cladding rectification charge and information provided by Council may be crucial in this regard.

Any arrears under the levy will be the vendor’s responsibility, the current instalment will be adjusted between the parties at settlement and the outstanding levy will become the responsibility of the purchaser as a charge on the land (s.156(6)).

By s.175, a purchaser may continue to pay charges by instalments. A purchaser will therefore need to adjust the price that the purchaser is prepared to pay for the property to take account of the outstanding cladding rectification levy that the purchaser will become liable for and full disclosure in this regard is essential so as to allow the purchaser to set its price.

Tips

  • cladding rectification charges may apply to multi-storey units
  • cladding rectification charges must be disclosed by vendors
  • purchaser will be liable for charges due after settlement

Conveyancing – amendments in support of eConveyancing – NSW

by

Amendments to the Conveyancing Act 1919 and the Real Property Act 1900 by the Conveyancing Legislation Amendment Act 2018, in support of eConveyancing, commenced on 22 November 2018. These amendments address the following key issues concerning electronic conveyancing:

  • Clarifications regarding the application of the Conveyancing Act 1919 and the Real Property Act 1900 to electronic form contracts and electronic signatures – s 6C, 23C (2) and 54A (4);
  • If a sale of land contract is in electronic form then those documents which must be attached to satisfy vendor disclosure obligations may also be in electronic form.
  • Where a registry instrument (dealing, memorandum, caveat or priority notice) is lodged for registration, any other document supporting that instrument may be signed electronically: s 36 (1F) Real Property Act 1900;
  • A client authorisation produced in electronic form may also be electronically signed: s 107 (1A) Real Property Act 1900; and
  • Deeds are now able to be electronically signed and attested – Section 38A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 states that a deed may be created in electronic form and electronically signed and attested in accordance with Part 3. Notably, this includes leases.

The Sale and Purchase Commentaries as well as 1001 Conveyancing Answers within the By Lawyers Conveyancing Guide (NSW), which already cover eConveyancing in detail, have been updated to reflect these changes in support of eConveyancing.

The Commentary within the By Lawyers Leases (NSW) Guide has also been updated.

Scary short-stays

by

By Russell Cocks, Solicitor

First published in the Law Institute Journal

One of the innovations adopted by property law principles during the Twentieth Century was the ability to divide real estate into stratas. Previously, ownership of land had traditionally given to the owner of that land the right to that land ‘from heaven to hell’. All the way up and all the way down. An owner was entitled to prevent anyone from burrowing under or building above their land. There were some exceptions, generally in aid of government endorsed enterprises such as mining companies, but the gender specific saying “every man’s home is his castle” was endorsed to the fullest extent by the law.

However, the pressures of living in large metropolises demanded that the law recognise a way that land could be divided not only on a horizontal plane, but also vertically into stratas, so that the teeming masses could be accommodated in as small an area as possible. In Victoria, this led to the Strata Titles Act in 1967 formalising ad hoc ‘company share’ ownership schemes that has festered in preceding decades. The process culminated in the Owners Corporation Act in the early years of the new millennium that sought to bring a structure not only to ownership, but also to the difficulties of cohabitation, in a broad sense.

Indeed, the Owners Corporation Act is primarily concerned with the rights and obligations of the various owners of the land, collectively the Owners Corporation, leaving it to the Subdivision Act to regulate where the lines are drawn, both on the ground and between the various stratas. Regulating Body Corporates under the Strata Title Act proved to be a training ground for the sort of issues that can arise when large cohorts of people occupy a small area of land and VCAT is now the forum for those issues to be aired.

It would be fair to say that the traditional demographic of strata ownership in the second half of the twentieth century were elderly people looking to downsize, a relatively stable and non-litigious group. But the advent of large-scale developments in inner city locations designed to appeal to a younger and more mobile demographic caused a seismic shift in the profile of residents in buildings subject to the Owners Corporation Act.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the short-stay environment. Inner city apartments, often with in-house facilities such a gyms and swimming pools, are attractive to people who are looking to visit a city for a short time, but the lifestyle of such people is often likely to clash with long term residents more interested in a quiet, stable lifestyle. Complaints by and to Owners Corporation Managers have, by and large, been unsuccessful as the Courts have tended to put the proprietary right of the owner (including the right to lease) above the concerns of other residents. Thus, attempts to pass Rules preventing Short Stays have been held to be beyond the power of Owners Corporations and various other attempts to rely on building regulations have been equally unsuccessful.

This has resulted in legislative intervention, but the solution recognises that not all short-stays are toxic. From 1 February 2019 the Owners Corporation Act will proscribe certain behaviour in the short-stay environment and establish a process whereby complaints relating to breaches of those behaviour standards will be dealt with, initially at least, by the Owners Corporation. After receiving a written complaint, or at its own instigation, the Owners Corporation must give the owner notice of the complaint and require the breach to be rectified and may also refer the breach to VCAT.

VCAT has power to hear and determine short-stay disputes and may issue prohibition orders, award compensation and impose a civil penalty. Prohibition orders may be made when a notice has been served on 3 separate occasions in 24 months but ceases if the property is sold. Compensation may be awarded to an occupier who has suffered loss of amenity, to a maximum of $2,000, and the short-stay occupier AND short-stay provider are jointly and severally liable to satisfy a compensation order and to pay any civil penalty.

This measured approach to a growing problem may be sufficient to ensure that short-stay providers make a greater effort to control the potentially anti-social behaviour of some short-stay users.

De-regulated Contract of Sale of Land

by

By Russell Cocks, Solicitor

First published in the Law Institute Journal

What are the consequences of the sunsetting of the regulations prescribing the standard Contract of Sale of Land?

The Estate Agents (Contracts) Regulations 2008 reached their sunset date on 11 August 2018, pursuant to the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994. As a consequence, those regulations, and amending regulations in 2011 and 2014, are revoked. The standard form contract almost universally used in Victoria for the sale of land is described in those now revoked regulations as the ‘prescribed’ contract and the thought that the prescribed contract has now lost its regulatory basis would appear, at first glance at least, to be a worrying development.

However, fear not. The ‘prescription’ only relates to the form of contract to be used by a licenced real estate agent. It does not prescribe the form of contract that may be prepared by a legal practitioner or conveyancer.

Section 91 Estate Agents Act 1980 authorises the making of regulations specifying the form of contracts to be used by estate agents. For many years the Law Institute of Victoria developed a standard form contract that was adopted as the prescribed contract and printed in the Regulations for use by estate agents. In fact, estate agents, in real estate sales at least, rarely prepare their own contract and usually request a contract from the vendor’s legal practitioner or conveyancer. As the ‘prescribed’ form is acknowledged as a universally accepted form and is available without charge as a public document, it is the form in common use. Proprietary conveyancing programs are permitted to replicate the form prescribed in the regulations and the LIV and REIV sell their version of the form (with appropriate logos) to their members in print or digital form.

The revocation of the Regulations notionally leaves that minority of estate agents who choose to prepare contracts, rather than requesting them from legal practitioners or conveyancers, without a prescribed form of contract. But s 53A Estate Agents Act 1980 authorises agents to use contracts that are approved by a professional association within the meaning of the Legal Profession Act 2004 and the prescribed contract was so approved by the LIV before being prescribed in the Regulations and the revocation of the Regulation does not affect that approval, at least at present.

The short answer for estate agents concerned by this development is to stop preparing contracts and request contracts from the vendor’s legal practitioner or conveyancer. This, with respect, is simply good practice in any event.

The de-regulation has no effect on legal practitioners, who are free to adopt any form of contract, subject to other statutory constraints such as the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012. Whilst the current contract does include a warranty in GC2 1 that the general conditions of the contract are identical with the general conditions prescribed in the Regulations, that warranty would appear to be unaffected by the revocation of the Regulations as proof of the form of the de-regulated contract will remain possible from parliamentary records. Thus, we can expect that the ‘prescribed’ contract will continue in general use into the near future.

Allowing the Regulations to sunset appears to have been a deliberate choice by the government. This may be due to a desire by the government to undertake wide ranging reform of the property law sector as a result of the Consumer Property Law Review 2016. That Review investigated a proposal to prescribe a form of contract of sale of land that would be obligatory for ALL sales, or at least to prescribe certain minimum terms that would be obligatory in all contracts. Whilst those proposals have not as yet seen the light of day, the decision to allow the Regulations to sunset without replacement indicates that changes might not be far away. Indeed, the government could have chosen to extend the Regulation for a further 12 months, but apparently decided not to do so.

It would be fair to say that recent changes, including CGT and GST Withholding, have resulted in unwieldy Special Conditions being introduced into the LIV contract. Whether the deregulation of the contract and the other changes that may flow from the Review will result in other forms of contract becoming common is yet to be seen but the life of a property lawyer, despite widely held expectations to the contrary, is never dull.

Tip Box

  • ‘Prescribed’ contract regulations revoked.
  • Only affects estate agents.
  • Does not affect legal practitioners or conveyancers.

Connect with us