ByLawyers News and Updates

Deposit – Forfeiture of deposit

by

By Russell Cocks, Solicitor

First published in the Law Institute Journal

A vendor may forfeit a deposit if the contract is ended but there are some circumstances where relief against forfeiture may be granted.

There are two basic principles in property law that generally co-exist but are capable of coming into conflict:

  • a deposit is an earnest paid to secure the performance of the contract; and
  • the law will not enforce a penalty imposed for breach of contract.

These two principles are usually able to co-exist as a result of the law recognising that a payment that constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of a vendor’s losses upon default by the purchaser is not a penalty and that a deposit of 10% of the price is an acceptable pre-estimate of such losses.

It is therefore fair to say that, in circumstances where the purchaser has paid a 10% deposit, a vendor who seeks to forfeit that deposit as a result of the purchaser’s breach of contract will be on safe ground. Section 49 Property Law Act confers on the court a discretion to grant the purchaser relief against forfeiture but it is generally accepted that the purchaser must show exceptional circumstances to justify the exercise of that discretion in circumstances where the deposit is 10%.

An example of such exceptional circumstances may be where the purchaser has taken possession of the property with the agreement of the vendor and has expended money on the property such as to have increased the value of the property. A court might find that the vendor is not entitled to retain the benefit of the funds expended as well as the deposit. But, as a general rule, the vendor can forfeit a deposit of 10% that has been paid by the purchaser. Equally, it will be rare for a vendor to be entitled to retain a deposit of more than 10%, as such a payment exceeds a reasonable pre-estimate of the vendor’s losses and amounts to a penalty.

Often, the deposit is expressed as being ‘10% payable as to $X on signing the contract and balance in 7 days’. Such a formula recognises that a purchaser might not always have a full 10% deposit available at the point of signing the contract and may require a short period of time to arrange for the balance to be available. If the purchaser breaches the contract the vendor needs to call upon the assistance of the court to recover the unpaid deposit and the spectre of a penalty arises. However, it has long been accepted that a vendor is entitled to recover any unpaid part of a 10% deposit notwithstanding that the contract has been ended – Bot v Ristevski [1981] VicRp 13 adopted as recently as Melegant & Sundrum P/L v Zhong [2017] VCC 1868.

However, where the deposit is expressed as some amount less than 10%, the court will not assist the vendor to recover 10%. This has been the situation in NSW for some time and now also applies in Victoria following Simcevski v Dixon (No 2) [2017] VSC 531 were the contract provided for a deposit of 5% and the court rejected a claim by the vendor for a further 5%.

In that case the vendor sought to rely upon a condition in the contract that provided that, if the contract was ended by the vendor, 10% of the price was to be forfeited to the vendor, whether it had been paid or not. Whilst the amount (10%) bore a resemblance to a deposit, the contract provided that the deposit was 5%, so the court had no hesitation in finding that any amount beyond the specified deposit was a penalty and thereby unenforceable, whether supported by a contractual right or not. It may therefore be concluded that any attempt to impose a liability beyond the specified deposit will be an unenforceable penalty.

One formula that has not as yet been scrutinised by a court is ‘deposit of 10% payable as to 5% on signing and the balance of 5% at settlement’. The 10% deposit will not be a penalty and the delay in payment should mean that the vendor is able to recover the full 10% in accordance with Bot v Ristevski.

Tip Box

  • the law will not enforce a penalty for breach of contract
  • a 10% deposit is not a penalty
  • a vendor cannot recover more than the specified deposit

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

Vendor’s duty to co-operate

by

By Russell Cocks, Solicitor

First published in the Law Institute Journal

Contracts often impose specific obligations on purchasers but these may be accompanied by implied obligations on vendors to co-operate with the purchaser to allow the purchaser to fulfil those obligations.

Contracts of sale of land often include conditions that require a purchaser to undertake some action that will put the purchaser in a position to complete the contract. Such conditions are known as ‘contingent conditions’ in that the purchaser does not promise that the condition will be satisfied but acknowledges that if the condition is satisfied, the contract will no longer be conditional on that condition being satisfied.

A common example is a finance condition whereby the contract is conditional (contingent) upon the purchaser obtaining finance to assist the purchaser to complete the contract, or at least to make application for such finance and notify the vendor of the outcome. The purchaser does not promise that finance will be obtained, but obtaining finance will mean that the contract will proceed. The failure of a contingent condition will generally give a right to terminate a contract.

Contingent conditions may be in contrasted to promissory conditions whereby one, or both, of the contracting parties promise to do something; such as to adjust outgoings, or provide documents, or settle the transaction in a particular way. Generally, the failure of a promissory condition will not give a right of termination unless the condition is essential, or goes to the root of the contract.

Conditions may be both contingent and promissory, as indeed is the finance condition in GC14 of the standard contract. The contract is contingent upon the purchaser obtaining finance, but the purchaser also promises to apply for finance and advise of the outcome of that application. If the purchaser fails to comply with the requirements of the condition, the contingency is deemed to have been satisfied and the contract proceeds unconditionally in respect of finance.

Such conditions specifically impose obligations on the purchaser but also impliedly impose obligations on the vendor. Grubb v Toomey [2003] TASSC 131 and Grieve v Enge [2006] QCA 213 are authority for the proposition that a vendor who agrees to a finance condition in a contract impliedly agrees to make the property available to the purchaser for the purpose of a valuation required by a prospective lender and that a vendor who fails to comply with this obligation will be in breach of contract.

Simcevski v Dixon [2017] VSC 197 concerned the sale of a commercial property that had previously been used as a petrol station and that the purchaser wished to redevelop. The purchaser required finance for the purchase and the financier required a valuation to include an assessment of the likely contamination of the site. However, the contract was not conditional upon finance so it was not open to the purchaser to argue that the implied obligation to make the land available for valuation extended to an obligation to allow investigations.

The purchaser sought to rely on a Special Condition in the contract that stated that the vendor gave no warranty in respect of contamination, that the purchaser had inspected the property and that the purchaser released the vendor from any liability in relation to contamination. The condition also referred to the purchaser conducting investigations in relation to contamination and the purchaser sought to argue that this created an express or implied obligation on the purchaser to conduct those investigations and a consequent implied obligation on the vendor to make the property available for the purpose of conducting those investigations.

In the context of the contract this seemed an ambitious argument, as the purpose of the Special Condition appeared to be to protect the vendor and the court concluded as much. Thus, the court held that the Special Condition did not create an express or implied obligation on the purchaser to conduct investigations. Whilst the court did recognise that a vendor does have an implied general duty to co-operate with the purchaser to allow the purchaser to gain the benefits anticipated to flow from the contract, that duty did not extend to making the property available for the proposed investigations in this case as the purchaser had no obligation to conduct those investigations.

A final argument of the purchaser was that the refusal by the vendor to allow the investigations to be conducted prevented the purchaser from completing the contract and that a vendor in such circumstances should not be entitled to terminate the contract, as to do so would allow the vendor to benefit from its wrongdoing. The court, whilst acknowledging the Prevention Principle, held that, on the facts of this case, the Principle did not apply.

Tip Box

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

GST withholding

by

By Russell Cocks, Solicitor

First published in the Law Institute Journal

Six months after the ATO introduced new GST Withholding obligations on purchasers of real estate, those changes are starting to have an effect.

In an attempt to reduce avoidance of GST obligations by vendors arising from the practice of illegal phoenix activity, the ATO introduced a GST Withholding obligation on 1 July 2018. The intent of these changes is to require purchasers of certain types of real estate to withhold a portion of the purchase price from the vendor and pay that money to the ATO, to be applied as a credit towards the vendor’s GST liability. This is not a new tax, just a new method of collecting an existing tax. However, as is usually the case when the ATO seeks to transfer responsibility for tax collection, unintended consequences may result in the ‘innocent’ tax collector facing unexpected consequences.

Notice

Unfortunately, the introduction of the Withholding obligation has been complicated by the introduction of a parallel NOTICE obligation on vendors. It is logical in a transaction that generates a purchaser Withholding obligation to require the vendor to notify the purchaser that the obligation exists, but the vendor NOTICE obligation does not mirror the Withholding obligation and applies to a wider set of transactions than the Withholding obligation applies to. By way of example, one of the categories where the purchaser must Withhold is the sale of NEW residential premises but ALL vendors of ALL residential premises are obliged to give a NOTICE. In the case of not-new residential premises, the NOTICE states that the purchaser is NOT obliged to Withhold and given that the vast majority of residential sales are of existing (as opposed to new) properties the effect of the legislation is to require a vast number of vendors to advise the purchaser that no Withholding is required. This obligation appears to be counter-intuitive and has resulted in considerable misunderstanding in relation to the application of the Withholding obligation. It is difficult to glean the motivation behind this wider NOTICE obligation and perhaps this anomaly might be rectified in any review of the legislation.

The most efficient way to deal with the NOTICE obligation when no Withholding is required is to include the NOTICE in the contract with the statement that no Withholding is required. If Withholding is required, the NOTICE must provide the vendor’s name, vendor’s ABN, specify the Withholding amount and when it is payable (at settlement) and may be provided in the contract, or subsequently.

Obligation

In summary, the purchaser must Withhold if the contract relates to:

  1. new residential premises.

This category can be seen to apply to apartment and townhouse sales where there was a perception of illegal phoenix activity.

  1. potential residential land.

This category applies to greenfield subdivision sales, again a potential phoenix scenario.

However, this category is wider than lots on a proposed plan. It applies to potential residential land that is included in a (registered) plan of subdivision. It therefore applies to sales of residential lots off-the-plan (because the plan is registered prior to settlement) but also applies to the sale of ANY residential land that is a lot on a plan of subdivision – effectively ALL vacant residential land.

However, Withholding is only required where the vendor makes a taxable supply. Off-the-plan sales by land developers will be in the course of an enterprise and therefore taxable supplies attracting Withholding, but most sales of one-off vacant residential lots will NOT be in the course of an enterprise and therefore will not be a taxable supply and will not attract Withholding. Notwithstanding that no Withholding is required, the vendor must still give the purchaser NOTICE that Withholding does not apply.

Again, this seems counter-intuitive and restricting the obligation to off-the-plan sales might be a future improvement.

Payment

If the vendor gives NOTICE that Withholding applies the purchaser must lodge a form of Withholding notification with the ATO and will then receive a lodgement reference number (LRN) acknowledging the notification and a payment reference number (PRN) to be used when lodging a settlement date confirmation form at the time of payment to the ATO.

Tip Box

•GST Withholding applies to new residential premises and vacant residential land.

•Withholding NOTICE must be given with ALL residential sales.

QLD conveyancing – Priority notices

by

From 1 January 2018 priority notices will replace settlement notices.

Settlement notices will not be accepted at the titles Registry after 4.30 pm on 22 December 2017. If lodgement is anticipated after this date prepare a priority notice. Priority notices may be signed prior to 1 January 2018.

The publication has been updated to include precedents and commentary on priority notices.

Foreign resident capital gains withholding clearance certificates

by

Clearance certificates will not be issued during the ATO’s Christmas closure – 22/12/17 to 2/1/18.

Power of attorney

by

By Russell Cocks, Solicitor

First published in the Law Institute Journal

Property lawyers often come across a Power of Attorney in practice and understanding the obligations of an Attorney is important.

The ability of a person (the donor) to delegate power to another (the attorney) has been recognised by the law for centuries. A common law form of Power of Attorney would be in the form of a deed and would recite the appointment by the donor of the attorney and confer power on the attorney. Traditionally such documents would run for many pages and would enumerate extensive powers that the attorney was authorised to exercise on behalf of the donor. Alternatively, the document could be limited in scope, authorising the attorney to exercise specific powers for a specific purpose.

The significance of the power conferred on the attorney was recognised as a reason for government supervision and a system of registration of powers was established. But the cost of this supervisory role was deemed excessive and the registration of powers ceased in the late 20th. century, although a limited registration process is available at the Land Titles Office for ‘heavy users’. The wheel turns in such matters and there are presently calls for law reform to again invoke a registration process.

The form of a power of attorney was governed by the Instruments Act 1958 until the Powers of Attorney Act 2014. This Act sets out in detail the requirements relating to the creation, use and revocation of powers of attorney and recognises various types of powers, the most important of which is the Enduring Power of Attorney. This is so as the common law took the view that the attorney loses power if the donor loses legal capacity and, given the importance of powers for the management of the affairs of the elderly who are susceptible to losing capacity, such a restriction undermines the effectiveness of the power. The Act therefore perpetuates the Enduring power beyond loss of capacity of the donor.

FIDUCIARY DUTY

Perhaps the most important aspect of a power of attorney is the fiduciary duty owed by the attorney to the donor. This is a common law concept and is not mentioned in the Act, although the Act does have a prohibition on the attorney entering into any transaction that may create a conflict between the interests of the donor and the interests of the attorney (s 64) and specifically prohibits the attorney from using the position to make a profit (s 63). These are the two fundamental elements of the common law fiduciary duty and to that extent the Act confirms that duty.

A recent case that considered a breach of the common law duty is Ash v Ash [2017] VSC 577. The donor appointed his daughter (who was a solicitor) as attorney in 2012. By 2014 the donor had lost capacity and the attorney made a number of transfers of the donor’s assets, including superannuation, that resulted in the donor’s assets being substantially diminished. These transfers were to entities associated with the attorney and the attorney directly benefited from these transactions.

The attorney sought to explain the transactions as flowing from previous instructions given by the donor and as a result of the attorney using her ‘signing authority’ at the donor’s bank but the court dismissed these suggestions as a ‘fiction’ and to accept that argument would be to ‘undermine the protective role inherent in the appointment of an attorney’.

The court did not suggest that an attorney can never enter into a transaction creating conflict between the interests of the donor and the attorney and recognised that ‘fully informed consent’ of the donor would justify an attorney entering into such a ‘conflict’ transaction, however the attorney failed to discharge the onus of proving that such consent had been given by the donor.

The donor was represented by a VCAT appointed administrator who successfully sought judgment against the attorney for all losses suffered as a result of the attorney’s breach of fiduciary duty and also judgment against entities associated with the attorney who had been ‘knowing assistants’ in this breach.

Had these actions taken place after 2015 the attorney may well have also been charged under s 135(3) Power of Attorney Act with committing an offence of using a power of attorney to gain financial advantage for the attorney or another person, with a possible penalty of 5 years imprisonment.

Tip Box

•Powers of Attorney create fiduciary obligations that the attorney must honour

•These obligations include a duty to avoid conflicts of interest

•Criminal penalties may apply to breach of these obligations

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

NSW – Land and Property Information (LPI) name change

by

From 1 December 2017 Land and Property Information (LPI) will be renamed Land Registry Services (LRS). Their logo, website domains and email address are changing. Full details available in this announcement from LPI.

WA – Electronic lodgement for all eligible documents

by

From 1 December 2017 – Any lodgement case consisting of eligible discharges, transfers, mortgages, caveats and withdrawal of caveats must be lodged electronically. Are you E-Conveyancing ready? See our paper E-Conveyancing – Get Connected for information and implementation timelines

Connect with us