ByLawyers News and Updates

ACT Conveyancing – Payment of stamp duty – Barrier Free Model amendments

by

Registration of transfer and payment of stamp duty

Under the Barrier Free model, stamp duty is only required to be paid to the ACT Revenue Office after registration of title at Access Canberra.

The transfer must be lodged for registration, and stamp duty paid, within 14 days after the settlement date. Penalty tax may be applied if the transfer is lodged late.

The relevant precedents in the By Lawyers ACT Purchase Guide have been updated accordingly, including:

  • All initial letters to buyer;
  • To do list; and
  • Finalisation letter to buyer.

Conveyancing – 1 July fee increases and legislative updates

by

1 July always sees legislative changes, including increases to many government charges related to conveyancing and property transactions. Happy New (financial) Year!

The following are some of the more important changes commencing 1 July 2018. By Lawyers publications in each state have been updated as appropriate.

CONVEYANCING

All states 

GST withholding provisions of the Taxation Administration Act commence.

Fee increases apply to all land registry services.

NSW

Mandatory electronic lodgement of all standalone transfers and caveats applies.

QLD

Additional Foreign Acquirer duty rate increased to 7%.

TAS

First Home Owner Grant scheme extended (to 30 June 2019).

SA

Stamp duty no longer charged on transfer of non-residential or non-primary production land: “Qualifying Land”.

 

Subdivision – Off the plan sales – Sunset conditions

by

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

A brief explanation of the move to e-conveyancing – PEXA settlements

by

Electronic conveyancing is coming

The conduct of a sale and purchase up to and including exchange can and will remain unchanged for some time as practitioners adapt to conducting matters electronically using emails and software that is currently being introduced into the market.

It is in fact possible today to prepare, submit, negotiate, sign and exchange contracts without the use of paper. Those practitioners interested in joining this move away from paper will find the means to do so within the By Lawyers conveyancing guides.

Electronic settlement has already arrived

However, the focus of this explanatory paper is the electronic settlement process – currently available via PEXA, but soon also via SYMPLI, a joint venture of Infotrack and the ASX.

So, how does PEXA work?

The PEXA process that follows exchange requires all participants in the transaction to have been identified, be registered and have a PEXA digital certification that entitles them to transact electronically in what is known as a ‘workspace’.

A workspace in the electronic conveyancing platform is opened by the vendor, or failing the vendor any other party, for each transaction and a date and time for settlement is entered. When the workspace is created the vendor ‘invites’ all other parties to the workspace via PEXA.

The workspace is where the transaction occurs. As the transaction progresses, each party can add, remove or amend their information in the workspace.

Whilst such matters as requisitions and settlement adjustments are completed outside the workspace, they can be uploaded to the workspace and made visible to a party of choice. For instance, a discharge authority might be made visible to the vendor’s discharging mortgagee only.

The vendor and purchaser sign a paper Client Authorisation allowing their practitioner to sign for them, as it is the practitioner who has the authority through their Digital Certificate to sign for clients. Therefore, the Client Authorisation is a critical document and must be retained for 7 years as they may be audited.

Outgoing and incoming mortgagees make their arrangements for settlement without input from practitioners. Payment directions are communicated by entry into a Financial Settlement Schedule which contains tabs for Source Funds and Disbursements.

Each party to the transaction completes their tasks prior to the nominated settlement time and for settlement to take place as planned, the Settlement Schedule must balance, the source funds must be available, and all documents must be signed.

How does settlement occur?

The workspace is locked automatically once everything is ready. This triggers title verification and movement of the source funds into a holding account. A final search is not required as the workspace will not lock if there are title impediments to registration.

Settlement occurs exactly as scheduled and title documents are lodged and registered, and the settlement funds disbursed in accordance with the Financial Settlement Schedule. The settlement process is automatic and completed in about 15 minutes which sees cleared funds transferred and title registered.

Note settlement can be cancelled at any time prior to the locking of the workspace.

The way of the future

 

The electronic settlement process is remarkably efficient and easy once you get used to it. As it seems inevitable that electronic settlements – and ultimately electronic conveyancing – will become standard practice, it is well worth becoming familiar with it and its really not so hard to do. By Lawyers conveyancing guides can assist you.

Electronic conveyancing – Are you ready?

by

As the timeline towards mandatory electronic conveyancing marches on, By Lawyers continues to make changes to our matter plans and precedents to make sure that you are ready and that completing your matters electronically is as easy as possible.

Our matter plans have been split after ‘Mid transaction’ into ‘Paper transaction – Through to settlement’ and ‘Electronic transaction – Through to settlement’.

Precedent letters have been updated and where necessary new precedents included to cover electronic transactions.

By Lawyers helps you make a seamless transition to the new regime.

Planning certificates – Accuracy

by

Can this be right?

By Russell Cocks, Solicitor

First published in the Law Institute Journal

Can lawyers rely on certificates provided by authorities?

Property lawyers rely on certificates from authorities, such as local councils, all the time. Acting for a vendor, our clients have an obligation to disclose, prior to contract, certain information to prospective purchasers about the property to be sold and often rely upon certificates to reveal that information. Indeed, s.32J Sale of Land Act envisages that such certificates may be attached to the Vendor Statement. When acting for a purchaser, it is common practice to rely on certificates attached to the Vendor Statement as proof of the information contained therein.

This is particularly relevant to the town planning status of the property, a consideration that can have a huge impact on the value of the property. It is fair to say that the average lawyer would unconditionally accept that if a planning certificate was annexed to a Vendor Statement, the zoning of the property would comply with that certificate and that the purchaser can rely on that information. It is therefore likely to come as somewhat of a shock that the Court of Appeal in Queensland appears to have thrown doubt on this expectation and, if that decision were to be followed in Victoria, lawyers would become liable to their purchaser clients if the information in the certificate proved to be incorrect.

Central Highlands Regional Council v Geju P/L [2018] QCA 38 was an appeal by the Council against the decision in Geju P/L v Central Highlands Regional Council [2016] QSC 279. At first instance McMeekin J held the Council responsible for an incorrect town planning certificate that described land as zoned ‘industrial’ when it was in fact zoned ‘rural’ and found in favour of a purchaser who, relying on the certificate, had paid too much for the land. The purchaser’s claim had been based on the negligence of Council in providing the incorrect certificate to the vendor, who in turn provided it to the purchaser, and the Court was satisfied that the Council owed a duty of care to the purchaser, had breached that duty and the purchaser had suffered loss as a result. Most lawyers would agree with that decision and take comfort in the knowledge that an authority is responsible not only to the party who obtains the certificate, but third parties who might be expected to rely on the certificate.

But that decision was overturned on appeal. The Court of Appeal followed a similar line of analysis to McMeekin J but diverted, dramatically, at the question of duty of care. McMeekin J was satisfied that the Council owed a general duty of care in respect of the provision of certificates and described the purchaser as being a member of a class of people who might reasonably be expected to rely on the certificate – a potential purchaser of the property. However, the Court of Appeal rejected this view and concluded that “there was no rational way to define a class of which (the purchaser) was a member other than in very broad terms” and went on to suggest that tenants, lenders or investors might also be interested in the information contained in the certificate and that the Council’s liability should not extend to such a wide class of people. Thus, the Council owed no duty of care to the prospective purchaser.

Can this be right?

Since Mid Density Developments P/L v Rockdale Municipal Council [1993] FCA 408 there has been a widely held belief that municipal Councils are responsible for the accuracy of certificates provided to applicants for certificates AND third parties who deal with the applicant and might be reasonably expected to rely on such certificates. Prospective purchasers certainly fall within such a class, particularly when the certificate is relied upon by the applicant vendor to satisfy the vendor’s statutory disclosure obligation to prospective purchasers. That other classes of people might also interact with the applicant for the certificate hardly seems a valid reason to exclude that smaller class of people who interact as prospective purchasers.

The law relating to negligence causing pure economic loss is arcane. The High Court has had cause to consider the issue on a number of occasions and Central Highlands might provide the opportunity for it to do so again. In the meantime it is hoped that the previously understood liability imposed on council charged with the responsibility of administering planning schemes to provide correct certificates in respect of those schemes will continue, in Victoria at least.

Tip Box

•authorities provide certificates relating to properties

•the applicant for the certificate can rely on it

•there is now some doubt as to whether a third party can rely

Conveyancing – GST withholding – additional commentary, amendments to contracts and precedents

by

The requirement for purchasers to withhold and remit GST on taxable supplies of certain real property under subdivision 14-E Schedule 1 Taxation Administration Act 1953 comes into force on 1 July 2018. This applies to all contracts that settle after 1 July. The transitional arrangements are that contracts entered into prior to 1 July 2018 and settle before 1 July 2020 are exempt from the withholding regime.

The sale and purchase commentaries in all states have been updated, the By Lawyers contracts in NSW and VIC have appropriate new provisions and precedent letters are being updated.

Vendor statement – Honest and reasonable

by

By Russell Cocks, Solicitor

First published in the Law Institute Journal

Section 32 Sale of Land Act requires a vendor to provide a purchaser with a Vendors Statement disclosing certain specified information in relation to the property. The purchaser may avoid the contract if there is a breach of s 32,
but the vendor has an ‘escape hatch’ in s 32K.

Last year McHutchison v Asli [2017] VSC 258 considered whether a vendor could rely on s 32K in circumstances where a planning permit for a septic sewerage system was not disclosed. Downing v Lau [2018] VCC 33 is a County Court decision considering s 32K in the context of non-disclosure of a planning permit relating to future development of the property.

Unlike in McHutchison, where the obligation to disclose the notices was contested by the vendor, Downing proceeded on the concession by the vendor that the planning permit was a ‘notice’ affecting the land within the meaning of s 32D(a). This is consistent with the decision in McHutchinson and must now be beyond doubt. The question in Downing therefore became – could the vendor rely on s 32K?

The two elements to s 32K are:

  • that the vendor acted honestly and reasonably and ought to be excused; and
  • that the purchaser is substantially in as good a position.

The vendor’s failure to disclose related to a current planning permit that had been obtained some time before the sale and which permitted the construction of four units on the land. Unlike the permit in McHutchinson, which imposed conditions on the use of the property and was therefore restrictive, the permit in Downing did not require construction of the units, it was simply a permissive notice. Nevertheless, it should have been disclosed. That it was not disclosed was a decision of the vendor’s conveyancer, who (mistakenly) was of the view that it did not need to be disclosed.

A vendor who has been personally negligent is not likely to qualify as ‘honest and reasonable’, so the question was whether the vendor would be vicariously liable for the vendor’s representative’s negligence. This had previously been considered by the Supreme Court in Paterson v Batrouney & Anor [2000] VSC 313 where elderly vendors were found not to be responsible for their representative’s negligence. Downing considered the question in the context of the law of agency and decided that the representative was retained by the vendor as an expert and was not the vendor’s agent, at least not for the purpose of preparing the Vendor Statement. Whilst the representative might be the vendor’s agent for other parts of the transaction, that agency did not extend to preparation of the Vendor’s Statement and the vendor was therefore not vicariously liable for the expert’s negligence.

Downing, in adopting Paterson v Batrouney, chose not to follow other authority and it may be that the matter will be reconsidered by the Supreme Court in the future.

Having found that the vendor satisfied the first leg of s 32K, the inquiry then turned to whether the ‘purchaser is in substantially as good a position’. The purchaser felt aggrieved because the purchaser had intended to seek a permit to construct eight (or perhaps seven) units and took the view that the existence of the permit for four units substantially affected the purchaser’s ability to get a permit for 7-8 units, notwithstanding that expiry of the four unit permit was imminent. Alternatively, the purchaser argued that a property with a disclosed four unit permit was worth less than a property without such a permit, as this property had been represented.

No valuation evidence was tendered to prove the second point and the court was not satisfied that the existence of the almost expired four unit permit meant that the purchaser could not achieve its desired outcome of a permit for 7-8 units. The court appeared to take the view that the purchaser regarded the property as ‘tainted’ by the four unit permit without being able to prove in any meaningful way that the purchaser was not substantially in as good a position.

The vendor was therefore held to have been entitled to accept the purchaser’s purported termination of the contract for breach of s 32 as a repudiation of the contract and thereby entitled to judgment for the amount of the unpaid deposit and interest at penalty rates.

Tip Box

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

  • s.32K allows a vendor to avoid termination for breach of s.32.
  • a vendor will not be responsible for the negligence of an expert.
  • purchaser cannot avoid if in as good a position.

By Lawyers Contract of Sale of Land – Victoria

by

A new form of contract, co-authored by Russell Cocks, providing a vendor’s statement and contract in one document.

The contract is specifically designed for residential conveyancing transactions and seeks to smooth some of the traditional road blocks that arise in these transactions.

The By Lawyers Contract of Sale of Land is located in the Contract folder in the Sale of Real Property Guide.

Seven reasons to use the By Lawyers contract

  1. The Contract and Vendor’s Statement are combined into ONE document, with the Vendor’s Statement, logically, coming FIRST. The Vendor’s Statement is formatted in such a way as to deal with the obligatory fields first and then group the optional fields in way that makes removal of those fields simple if they are not required.
  2. Particulars of Sale in the Contract includes a “sunset date” for off the plan approval. No more searching through mountains of Special Conditions.
  3. Non-derogation warranty. General Conditions can be amended by Special Conditions BUT not such as to reduce the rights created by the General Conditions. No more contracts that say one thing on page 1 and reverse that on page 15. This Contract is fair to both parties; if someone wants to create an unfair contract they cannot hide it within this contract.
  4. General Condition 12 – deposit release. Establishes a clear protocol for release by requiring timely objection to title.
  5. General Condition 14 – loan condition. Extends time for approval to 21 days and allows for automatic extension, subject to vendor’s ability to end the extension by notice.
  6. General Condition 25 – losses. Removes disputes relating to default losses from the settlement process and allows the parties to resolve these issues after settlement.
  7. General Conditions 27 & 28 – default and rescission notices. Divides the process into two steps with specified legal cost in respect of notices.

There are also other improvements, such as simple off the plan and electronic conveyancing conditions, a requirement that a vendor produce a copy lease at settlement and a clause passing ownership of abandoned goods to the purchaser. This Contract continues the quest commenced by the 2008 Contract (remember Requisitions?) to simplify conveyancing by ironing out the speedhumps.

Connect with us