How does a party to a contract of sale of real estate in Victoria prove that they are ready, willing and able to perform the contract, in order to obtain an order for specific performance?

On 15 March 2023, in Knight 34 Langdon Rd P/L and anor v Bell and others [2023] VSCA 54, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Emerton P, WalkerJA and J Forrest AJA) considered an application by an unsuccessful defendant for leave to adduce further evidence. 

The case concerned a dispute about a Contract for the Sale of a unit 'off the plan' in Toorak. The purchase price was $3,528,000 and a deposit of $350,000 had been paid. The purchasers had obtained an order from the Trial Judge that the vendor specifically perform the contract by settling the sale.

The further evidence was said to go to whether the purchasers were actually in a position to settle, the argument being that they were not, as they did not have the loan funds available on the day that they had applied for specific performance. 

The Court of Appeal rejected the application to rely on further evidence and dismissed the application for leave to appeal. 

For our purposes, the Court of Appeal made the following observations (at paragraphs 69 to 70): 

... we accept the Bells’ submission that it is not necessary, in order for a party to be properly characterised as ‘ready, willing and able’ to perform a contract of sale by payment of the purchase price, to have in hand — or in their bank account — the full amount of the purchase price at the time they claim to be ready, willing and able. As Menzies J observed in Bishop v Taylor:

The requirement of readiness and willingness does not demand that a purchaser should always have the purchase price in his pocket; all that is necessary is readiness and willingness to perform the contract according to its terms ((1968) 118 CLR 518, 525; [1968] HCA 68).

70                  That is, it is only necessary for a person to have the full amount of the purchase price immediately available as at the date on which the obligation to pay falls due (see Bisognin v Hera Projects Pty Ltd [2018] VSCA 93, [171]–[173] (Tate JA, Kyrou JA agreeing at [216], Coghlan JA agreeing at [217])). Thus, even if we had accepted that, on 19 July 2022, the Bells did not have immediate access to funds sufficient to pay the full purchase price for the Bell apartment, we would not have concluded that they had misled the Court by submitting that they were ready, willing and able to perform the contract of sale. In that regard, we accept the Bells’ submission that ‘[f]ar from demonstrating that they were not able to have the funds ready for settlement when the time for performance came, the so-called “fresh evidence” demonstrates exactly the opposite’

The Court of Appeal has therefore confirmed that to obtain an order for specific performance of a contract of sale of real estate in Victoria, all that a party to the contract needs to do is demonstrate that they will meet their obligations at the date that they fall due. In this case, the Trial Judge and the Court of Appeal found that the purchasers had met that requirement. 

WG Stark

Hayden Starke Chambers

Are there any recent Victorian cases about a mortgagee's duty of good faith in selling in a pandemic?

Further to my post (see: https://melbournepropertylaw.blogspot.com/2021/06/are-there-any-recent-cases-about.html) about a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland about a mortgagee's duty of good faith in selling in a pandemic, the Supreme Court of Victoria has now had to deal with the same issue. 

Matthews As J in 230V Harvest Home Road Pty Ltd v Joseph Salvo & Ors [2021] VSC 558 heard an application for summary judgment and concluded that the plaintiff had no real prospects of success on its statement of claim. As a result, summary judgment was granted in favour of the defendants/mortgagees. 

The claim related to the enforcement by the mortgagees of a $1.7m loan that they made to the Plaintiff, secured by a first registered mortgage over the property located in Harvest Home Road, Wollert (‘Property’). The Property was approximately 3,900 square metres of vacant land that was suitable for residential development.  After purchasing the Property, the Plaintiff obtained a planning permit for the construction of 18 townhouses on the Property.

The loan and accrued interest were due to be paid by 21 December 2019.  The Plaintiff failed to do so.  The mortgagees served a notice pursuant to s 76 of the Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic) (‘TLA’) on the Plaintiff or about 15 January 2020. 

After the notice was served, the Plaintiff advised the mortgagees that it had sold the Property for $2.5m plus GST. Unfortunately, this sale did not complete. 

On 6 June 2020, the mortgagees exercised their power of sale and sold the Property for $1.9m plus GST, with settlement due on 7 August 2020.  Settlement occurred after the Plaintiff’s application for an interim injunction to prevent settlement from occurring was dismissed.

In the claim, the Plaintiff alleged that the mortgagees did not:

(a)                Act in good faith and have regard to the interests of the Plaintiff by selling the Property for $1.9m which was substantially below the value of the Property;

(b)               Take reasonable steps to obtain the best price for the Property which was valued up to $2.4m; and

(c)                Have regard to the interests of other encumbrancers including a subsequent mortgagee and caveators.

At paragraph 43, Her Honour noted: 

"The key questions in this proceeding concern the Mortgagee Sale and whether the [mortgagees] breached their duties as mortgagees [of good faith in conducting the sale of the Property], causing loss and damage to the Plaintiff."  

The evidence before the Court included the following:

In March 2020, the mortgagees obtained a valuation of the Property in the range of $1.8m to $2m from the real estate engaged to sell the Property. The agent asserted that the sale price of $1.9m plus GST was market value, perhaps even higher than market value in the then current climate, and was the best offer made to purchase the Property.

The auction (scheduled for 4 April 2020) was cancelled due to the restrictions imposed by the Victorian government due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the mortgagees instructed the agent to instead sell the Property by private treaty. 

The mortgagee sale was an arm’s‑length contract, the mortgagees and the purchaser were not previously known to each other nor had any previous association, and were introduced by the real estate agent. 

In addition to the offer which was accepted by the mortgagees that led to the contract, the following offers were made and rejected:

(a)                $1.8m, subject to certain conditions in favour of the prospective purchaser, with settlement in October 2020;

(b)               $1.81m including GST, subject to strict conditions in favour of the prospective purchaser; and

(c)                $1.9m, subject to the prospective purchaser obtaining finance, with settlement not before 15 October 2020.

The amount owing by the Plaintiff to the mortgagees was $1,878,500 plus the costs of enforcing the Loan Agreement and the Mortgage. There was also an outstanding costs order in the mortgagees' favour arising from the earlier failed injunction application by the plaintiff. The mortgagees demanded $115,329.49 from the Plaintiff and from a guarantor, which was alleged to be the shortfall following the settlement of the Mortgagee Sale, which was not paid at the date of the hearing.

The plaintiff asserted that February Sale fell through as the purchaser’s bank would not lend at a high enough leverage-to-value ratio as was necessary for the purchaser to settle the purchase of the Property. 

The plaintiff intended to try and get a further extension from the mortgagees for this purchaser, who was seeking to obtain private alternative finance, or find a new buyer at the same price or to refinance the Property. 

Appraisals obtained by the plaintiff valued the Property between $2.1m and $2.4m.

The mortgagees argued that they had, in the circumstances of the case and the current COVID-19 epidemic, obtained the best price consistent with their entitlement to realise its security. 

There was no allegation that the purchaser has acted otherwise than bona fide and in his own best interests.  

The Plaintiff submitted that by selling the Property for $1.9m, which is below the appraisals made by three real estate agents around that time, the mortgagees sold the Property at an undervalue.  This was said to be an undervalue of between $300,000 and $500,000 based on those appraisals, or $600,000 when compared with the February Sale. 

The Plaintiff submitted that there is no evidence that the mortgagees or their real estate agent obtained an expert independent valuation prior to the sale, which failure was said to be contrary to standard practice in mortgagee sales and for the sale of undeveloped land.  It also said that providing a price range in the absence of an auction created an artificial ceiling on the price of the land. 

The Plaintiff asserted that the absence of an independent valuation and the evidence of the Property being sold at substantially undervalue pointed to a breach of the mortgagees’ duties in exercising their power of sale.  

Her Honour rejected the Plaintiff’s submission that the onus was on the mortgagees to show that they had satisfied their duties under the TLA and that the Plaintiff has nothing more than a fanciful chance of success.

At paragraph 91 of the judgment, Matthews As J concluded that the onus is not on the mortgagees to disprove the Plaintiff’s case by positively proving their own case.  The onus is on the mortgagees to show that the Plaintiff’s case has no real prospect of success, which the Plaintiff can refute by showing cause to the contrary. 

At paragraph 93, Her Honour proceeded:              

"Hence, rather than the [mortgagees] having the onus of showing that they have satisfied their duties as mortgagees, the question is whether there is sufficient evidence before the Court that the allegation that the [mortgagees] have breached their duties as mortgagees has a real prospect of success. 

The evidence relied upon by the mortgagees established that a conventional marketing campaign was undertaken.  There was nothing unconventional about the marketing material or the marketing channels; rather, the usual methods of selling land were employed.  This included advertising on commercial and development focused websites.

Having embarked upon a conventional marketing campaign in early March 2020, the mortgagees were then confronted with "exceptionally unconventional circumstances".  By mid to late March 2020, the state of Victoria was in lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  It was hardly surprising that in those circumstances, the auction of the Property which had been scheduled for 4 April 2020 was cancelled.  It was also hardly surprising that the mortgagees instructed the real estate agent to proceed to attempt to sell the Property by private treaty." 

At paragraph 100, Matthews As J noted:

"I do not see how it can be said that these actions constitute a breach of the mortgagee’s duties.  The auction could not physically be held, and a mortgagee is not obliged to wait until market conditions improve before conducting a mortgagee sale. A mortgagee has an entitlement to realise its security, provided that it abides by its duties in doing so. The duty to take reasonable steps to obtain the best price is a duty to take appropriate steps in the circumstances which are consistent with its right to enforce its security interest."

At paragraph 102 and following, Her Honour stated:           

"That really leaves the question of whether the Property was sold by the [mortgagees] at an undervalue.  While I accept that there is no evidence to explain how [the real estate agent] came to a range of $1.8m to $2m when advising the [mortgagees], the only evidence that this is an undervalue is that contained in the [the plaintiff's director's] Affidavit.  The fact that the Plaintiff had entered into the February Sale at $2.5m plus GST is not indicative of $1.9m plus GST being below market value, as the purchaser under that contract was unable to complete [the sale] due to an inability to obtain finance at that price.  I do not see how a failed contract can be said to be indicative of market value.  There is no evidence at all to support [the plaintiff's director’s] own view of value, being $2.475m to $2.7m, as he simply does not give any evidence to show how he came to that range.

The selling real estate agent's appraisal was followed by a marketing campaign and by offers made which were rejected.  The Plaintiff says that the marketing campaign put a range of $1.9m to $2.09m on the Property.  First, there [was] no evidence before [the Court] as to that other than [the plaintiff's director’s] statement: there is no document exhibited that shows this was the range stated in the marketing material.  Even if [the plaintiff's director’s] evidence in this regard is accepted, and I have no reason not to accept it given that the mortgagees could have contradicted it if they had felt the need to, there is no evidence before me that putting this range on the marketing material constitutes bad faith or a failure to obtain the best possible price.  Second, [the plaintiff's director’s] states that once the mortgagees advertised it at this price, “no one was willing to buy the property at what it was worth because it was now being advertised for $600,000 less”.  I do not accept this.  There is no evidence to support the finding that this was $600,000 below market value, and in any event this is opinion evidence which is inadmissible as [the plaintiff's director’s] is not an expert.  There is no evidence to state that putting the range that the real estate did put on the Property constitutes a failure to obtain the best price.  Having given the range of $1.8m to $2m to the mortgagees, it was entirely consistent for the real estate agent to have stated that range in the marketing material. 

Importantly, the evidence is that there was a significant amount of interest in the Property, but that interest manifested in only four offers (the three described above and the one which was accepted), all roughly within the price range given to the mortgagees.  Of the rejected offers, two were at the bottom end of the real estate agent's valuation and all three were on terms less favourable than the offer which was ultimately accepted.  Further, it is not as if the Property was sold to the first offeror or that it was on the market for a brief period of time.  The evidence is that the Property was on the market for about 3 months before the mortgagees accepted the best offer they had received in that time.

The evidence was that after the Mortgagee Sale, there remained a shortfall in the amount owing to the mortgagees of at least $115,329.49.  This supports the position that the mortgagees accepted the best available offer to them at the time.

At paragraph 107, Matthews As J did not accept that the Plaintiff has demonstrated that its claims that the mortgagees failed to abide by their duties as mortgagees when exercising their power of sale have a real prospect of success.

In the Injunction Application, the Court had already held that the Plaintiff had not established it had a prima facie case.  The Plaintiff’s evidence being no better than it was then, if a prima facie case had not been established at the time of the Injunction Application, her Honour found it difficult to see how it could then be said that the Plaintiff’s case has a real prospect of success.

Conclusion

In the circumstances of this case, it is clear that a borrower will have great difficulty in establishing that a lender has not acted in good faith simply by selling a security property during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

A borrower will need to establish a lack of good faith in the sale, something which is not made out simply by proving that the sale was at an under value (although that was not in fact proven in this case). 

WG Stark 

Hayden Starke Chambers

Are there any recent cases about a mortgagee's duty under section 420A of the Corporations Act when exercising their power of sale during the pandemic?

Readers will recall that I posted about a Queensland decision that dealt with a mortgagee exercising its power of sale during the pandemic (see here: https://melbournepropertylaw.blogspot.com/2021/06/are-there-any-recent-cases-about.html). 

Yesterday, I posted about the Supreme Court of Victoria dealing with a similar scenario (see: https://melbournepropertylaw.blogspot.com/2023/01/are-there-any-recent-victorian-cases.html). 

In Manda Capital Holdings Pty Ltd v PEC Portfolio Springvale Pty Ltd [2022] VSC 381, M Osborne J dealt with a dispute about whether the mortgagee in that case had exercised its power of sale in accordance with section 420A of Corporations Act 2011 (Cth).  

The lender advanced $6.39 million pursuant to a loan agreement.  The borrower mortgaged land at 2–10 Springvale Road, Springvale and 1690 Centre Road, Springvale (‘the Property’) as security for the Loan.  The second defendant provided a personal guarantee and indemnity in support of the Loan and further charged his interest in a property located at 6 Raymond Road, Seaford as security for the loan.  After the borrower fell into default under the Loan Agreement, the lender exercised its rights as mortgagee to enter into possession of the Property.  The lender subsequently sold the Property for $7 million pursuant to a contract of sale dated 22 December 2020.  The sale settled on 23 March 2021.  The principal and interest owed on the Loan exceeded the proceeds of sale from the Property.

The lender commenced proceedings against the borrower seeking the repayment of outstanding debt after the lender (as mortgagee in possession) sold the security property just subsequent to Melbourne’s second pandemic-induced lockdown in 2020 and the proceeds did not satisfy the mortgagee's debt. 

The borrower admitted default under the loan agreement and accepted the outstanding debt. However it counterclaimed against lender, contending that sale of the property breached the duties imposed by section 420A. The counterclaim alleged that if the lender had complied with section 420A of the Corporations Act, it would have achieved a sale price of $7.8 million (the market value outlined the borrower's expert evidence) leading to the secured debt being satisfied in full. 

The Court considered whether the best price had been obtained in exercising power of sale in circumstances where the price achieved was less than the outstanding liability to mortgagee. The court also considered the effect of COVID-19 lockdowns on property market.

Justice M Osborne noted that the parties agreed on the relevant legal principles to be applied, summarised by the Court of Appeal in Boz One Pty Ltd v McLellan [2015] VSCA 68 (Whelan, Santamaria and Kyrou JJA):

As the authorities illustrate, what must be done to comply with this general obligation will depend on the circumstances of each case, including the nature of the assets being sold and the circumstances of the chargor. In deciding whether a controller’s failure to take a particular step constitutes a breach of s 420A(1)(a), that step should not be considered in isolation. Rather, the court should consider the controller’s conduct as a whole in the context in which the controller was required to make decisions about which steps to take and which steps not to take. The controller’s conduct must be looked at holistically by reference to the dynamic circumstances that the controller faced at the relevant time.

Here, the ‘dynamic circumstances that the lender faced at the relevant time' were the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns. Therefore (as always) the crucial issue was the steps taken by the lender to sell the property.

The essence of the borrower’s case was that the mortgagee contravened s 420A of the Act by failing to take all reasonable steps to sell the Property for market value.  In particular, the borrower alleged that:

(a) the sales campaign was too short;

(b) the proposed advertising strategy was inapt in that it gave undue prominence to the fact of the sale being a mortgagee sale; and

(c) the mortgagee should have extended the campaign into 2021 in light of the quality of the offers that it had received rather than entering into the Sale Contract.

M Osborne J noted at paragraph 13 that:

"Whilst it is clear that s 420A of the Act imposes a more rigorous statutory duty upon a mortgagee or other receiver in relation to its power of sale than that provided by the general law duty of good faith (Boz One Pty Ltd v McLellan [2015] VSCA 268 at [157]), the more rigorous duty imposed by s 420A does not detract from the common law principle that a mortgagee may sell at the time of its choosing and does not have to wait until a time when a better price might be obtained (Investec Bank (Australia) Ltd v Glodale Pty Ltd [2009] VSCA 97; (2009) 24 VR 617, 627 [48] (Neave and Redlich JJA and Forrest AJA)."

Justice M Osborne made the following relevant findings:

The four-week expression of interest sales campaign was entirely adequate, if not best practice, in the circumstances.

The agents employed were experienced real estate agents, with expertise in development sites in inner suburban Melbourne.

The sales campaign attracted considerable interest. The evidence was that prospective buyers did not withdraw because they did not have sufficient time to undertake an assessment of the property (due to COVID-19 restraints). Rather, they withdrew because they were told that the vendor was seeking a price of $7 million or more, where the buyers’ interest was generally at a price of up to $6 million.

The sales campaign obtained the $7 million sale in a difficult and unpredictable market, which was within the range of the agent’s estimate and exceeded the market value as assessed in the valuation obtained from an independent expert prior to entering into the sale contract.

There was no breach of section 420A of the Act by not extending the sales campaign – the expert evidence preferred by the Court was that readvertising in 2021 would suggest to the market that the late 2020 sales campaign failed, removing the competitive tension from the sales process. In addition, it would result in significant risk, noting the additional interest accruing under the loan (about $110,000 to $130,000 per month). 

The emphasis in the advertising campaign on the fact of the mortgagee sale was entirely consistent with usual practice and had obvious commercial advantage – The evidence (of the lender's experts) that it is common for properties to be advertised as mortgagee sales, indicating a motivated vendor and is not simply testing the market was preferred. One of the experts considered that this was particularly appropriate for the property during the COVID-19 lockdown and opined that without a mortgagee sale tag, it may have been perceived by many in the market that the vendor had an elevated view of the property’s worth.

Justice M Osborne considered the expert valuation provided by both parties, and although he accepted the lender's experts' evidence, in fact one of the borrower's experts was not very different from the ultimate sale price (having given a range of $7,260,000 to $8,300,000). Despite that range, the borrowers asserted that the valuation showed that the security property was worth $7.6m. The Honourable Justice dismissed that assertion as an oversimplification. He also noted at paragraph 78:

"Valuation is often described as an art, not a science, and it is well understood that two valuers acting competently could come to different conclusions as to the value of a particular property on a given day.  Absent any challenge to each valuer’s choice of comparable sales which did not occur in the present case, I am not in a position to prefer the evidence of one over the other.  Rather, I conclude that the difference between their two valuations is simply a product of reasonable judgment by appropriately qualified persons." 

Conclusion

This decision is a further example of the difficulties faced by a dissatisfied borrower in trying to pursue a claim against a mortgagee alleging failure to comply with its legislative duties. The Court emphasised that the mortgagee’s conduct as a whole will be considered with reference to the ‘dynamic circumstances’ faced when determining if the duty under section 420A has been complied with. 

Obtaining contemporaneous valuations, using reputable agents and carefully considering independent advice from those agents will carry considerable weight in the face of borrower dissatisfaction without much more.

WG Stark

Hayden Starke Chambers

Can an Owners Corporation pass a rule that prevents a particular use of a lot in Victoria?

It is relatively common for Owners Corporations to seek to restrict the use to which a lot in a building subject to a subdivision can be put. 
 
Both the Supreme Court of Victoria and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal have found that an owners corporation rule seeking to prohibit a particular type of use of a lot is an invalid rule which is beyond the owners corporation’s rule making power provided for by the Owners Corporation Act 2006 (Vic) (Act).

For example, in Lawandi v Owners Corporation 21842D (Owners Corporations) [2015] VCAT 1810 (20 October 2015), the owners corporation sought to prevent the Applicant from using the relevant premises for residential purposes in a building which was primarily used for commercial purposes. 

The owners corporation introduced a new rule by Special Resolution which provided:

A lot owner or occupier must not use the lot, or permit it to be used, for residential or other accommodation, whether short term, long term or otherwise.

In considering the rule, the Tribunal closely considered the wording of section 138 of the Act and Schedule 1 of the Act. 

VCAT Vice President, County Court Judge Davis, found that the matters which an owners corporation may make rules about are confined to the subject matter in Schedule 1 of the Act. 

Clause 5 of Schedule 1 of the Act (relating to lots) was found to enable an owners corporation to make rules regulating the external appearance of lots or activities being carried out on a lot so far as they impact on common convenience or common areas, but did not extend to prohibiting a particular use of a lot.

Vice President Judge Davis found:

[T]he power under the Act in an OC to make rules “for and with respect to” a “change of use of a lot” cannot be construed to allow an OC to make a rule prohibiting the change of use of a lot.  Rather, the power is to be construed as a power to make rules for and in respect of any change of use of a lot that are necessary for the carrying out of its functions under the Act.

Rules limiting types of uses within buildings affected by owners corporations are common in inner city developments. 

However, it seems that attempts to restrict the use of a lot in are likely to be ineffective (for example the Republic Tower at 299 Queen Street, Melbourne (the subject of Morrish v Republic Tower Body Corporate [2004] VSC 56) and the Watergate Building in the Docklands (the subject of Owners Corporation PS501391P v Balcombe (Owners Corporations)[2015] VCAT 956)). 

The cases have important ramifications for owners corporations and members of owners corporations. 

Careful consideration needs to be given about the potential invalidity of any owners corporation rule which seeks to prohibit a lot from being used for a particular purpose, such as a residential use or a commercial use, and a member’s obligation to comply with a rule of this nature.

WG Stark

Hayden Starke Chambers

Are there any recent cases about Section 9AC of the Sale of Land Act and material changes to plans of subdivision before registration?

The property market for the sale of apartments in Victoria, Australia has become more challenging recently. 

Lockdowns and other restrictions resulting from COVID-19 such as density limits and mask wearing combined with absent foreign buyers, as well as general concern about the viability of some projects, caused banks to impose limits on off-the-plan lending. Further, stamp duty increases have also helped to create downward pressure on values. Finally, we now have upward pressure on interest rates adding to the uncertainty in the apartment market. 

In August 2021, Associate Justice Matthews was called upon in the Supreme Court of Victoria to decide an application in relation to Section 9AC of the Sale of Land Act 1962 (see Burger & Ors v Longboat Holdings Group 2 Pty Ltd [2021] VSC 469).

Readers will be aware of the decisions in Besser and Lockwood (see my post of 3 May 2013 - here https://rb.gy/rs1otu) where purchasers of property off the plan were held to be entitled to rescind after material amendments were made to the plans. 

Facts in Burger Case

Between when contracts were signed and the plan of subdivision was lodged for registration, the developer made several changes to the Plan. These included:

• decreasing the area of the apartment (predominantly the master bedroom by 4.39%).
• reducing the size of the light court resulting in a decrease of natural light into the master bedroom.
• reducing the size of the common property by vesting part of it in the local council as a council reserve.
• decreasing the area of common property 1 by creating common property 2. Common property 2 was converted into a roof terrace, which the purchaser as a member of common property 1, could not access. Prior to the change, all owners were able to access the roof terrace (however, prior to the changes to the Plan, that terrace was inaccessible to everyone).
• changing the size and location of the car spaces, including reducing the size of one car space by 11% and relocating the other from the top of a car stacker to the bottom.

The developer notified purchasers of the changes (as it was required to do). However, it had not notified the purchasers of several interim alterations. 

In response the purchasers of two lots purported to terminate their contracts in accordance with section 9AC of the SLA. 

The developer refused to accept each termination and refused to return the deposits on the basis that the changes to the Plan did not materially affect the purchasers’ lots. Developers have traditionally relied upon a less than 5% change in apartment area is being the benchmark to determine that the lot has not been materially affected. 

Her Honour disagreed with the developer's position and upheld the termination of each of the contracts by the purchasers and declared that the respective purchasers were each entitled to have their deposits refunded.

Court's conclusions

In reaching her decision, Matthews As J considered whether each of the changes made to the Plan materially affected the purchasers’ lots. 

In her deliberations, the Associate Justice rejected the developer's arguments that there was only a "modest change" to the size of the master bedroom and the total reduction in the size of the lots of 4.39% was less than a 5% reduction in size. The developer argued that a 5% variation had previously been held as "generally regarded as tolerable". In that regard, the developer relied on the decision of County Court Judge Kennedy (as Kennedy JA then was) in Birch v Robek [2014] VCC 68. In that case, the developer had a similar clause in which purchasers acknowledged that a 5% reduction in size did not materially affect the plan. However Judge Kennedy concluded in that case that the purchaser was entitled to rescind the contract and have the deposit paid returned (the change in area in that case was 12%). 

It goes without saying that County Court decisions are not binding on the Supreme Court of Victoria. However, Judge Kennedy has since been promoted and is now a Justice of Appeal in the Court of Appeal, at least implying that her decisions should be given more weight. 

The developer also relied upon the decision of Teague J in Buckley v DRK [1993] ANZ ConvR 423, where Justice Teague was disposed to see 5% for a suburban allotment at least in a general sense as being if not the most appropriate balance point, then at least a better one than 2% or 10%. 

Readers will note that the wording used by Justice Teague is not exact, and certainly left open room for argument in later cases about whether the arbitrary nature of 5% was sufficient to dispose of a claim that the plan had not been materially changed. 

Matthews As J concluded:

• Decrease in area - a change in an area of less than 5% can be material, depending upon the location and nature of the change and its effect. 
• In this case the Court commented that a reduction in size of almost 4m2 (which effectively reduced the size of the master bedroom by a quarter), ‘to a master bedroom that could hardly be described as palatial prior to the change, is clearly material’ (paragraph 79). 
• Additionally, the Court agreed with the purchaser’s argument that the change was exacerbated by the creation of the alcove which created unusable space, making it very difficult for typical bedroom furniture to be manoeuvred into the room. The changes also impacted the ‘attractiveness of the room’.
• Despite providing no expert opinion of the light flow, and the vendor disputing that the size of the light court between the plans had changed, the Court was satisfied the change had materially affected the lots. The Court acknowledged while the change in the light court in isolation may not have been material, in combination with the changes to the master bedroom, the flow of light in to the bedroom was sufficiently impacted.
• The presence of a special condition where the purchasers agreed that a decrease of less than 5% was not material, standard in many off-the-plan contracts, did not protect the developer in these circumstances. 
• Light court change - this change was not significant on its own. However, when it was combined with the changes to the master bedroom size, it did materially affect the lots.
• Creation of council reserve - once the council reserve was created, the purchasers no longer had exclusive rights over the area. This change on its own materially affected the lots. 
• Change in common property - although the size of the newly created common property 2 was relatively small in the context of the development, the loss of potential use of the terrace was not insignificant and as a result materially affected the purchasers’ lots. 
• Car space changes - these changes did not affect the type of car that could use the car spaces. Her Honour concluded therefore that these changes did not materially affect the purchasers’ lots.

Matters to consider 

The decision in Burger confirms that no matter what provisions are included in a contract of sale (including the now common acknowledgement that a change in area of less than 5% is not material) it is not possible to contract out of section 9AC.

In reality, the practical impact of any change will always need to be assessed to determine if a change is material.

In those circumstances, developers should include in their contracts of sale off plan, plans of subdivision that are finalised as much as possible and endeavour to keep changes to a minimum. 

They should also engage with purchasers affected by material changes to manage the impact of those changes. 

Whilst many changes are obligatory in order for the proposed plan of subdivision to be accepted by council, it is always recommended that developers obtain legal advice on the specific changes before they are made to the Plan to manage any risk that a purchaser may rescind.

Since material changes to a plan of subdivision can entitle a purchaser to rescind their off-the-plan contract lawfully, any such rescission can impact a developer's pre-sales and financing arrangements, resulting in reductions to total pre-sales amounts, as well as potential breaches of conditions in development facility agreements.

Developers need to be acutely aware of their financier's conditions in relation to purchasers' rights to rescind contracts and obtain legal advice when entering into financing arrangements which are conditional upon a development's pre-sales.

Developers should also ensure compliance with the strict timeframes set out in Section 9AC, and notify purchasers of changes and potential changes early in an attempt to manage the impact of those changes. 

Clearly, communication with purchasers is key. 

Conclusion

While the case turns on its own facts, this decision still sounds a warning to developers in increasingly difficult times. 

The decision confirms that the attempts by many developers to impose an arbitrary figure of 5% variation on purchasers as being not material will not always be successful.  

WG Stark

Hayden Starke Chambers

Is it a good idea to use a template or precedent form of lease?

The High Court decision in Gee Dee Nominees Pty Ltd v Ecosse Property Holdings Pty Ltd [2017] HCA 12; (1987) 261 CLR 544; 91 ALJR 486; 343 ALR 58 (29 March 2017) (Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Gordon JJ with Nettle J dissenting) highlights the risks involved in poor drafting of legal documents and using template documents that are not suitable for the required purpose. 

Here we have a transaction nominally within the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court of Victoria that has had a Victorian Supreme Court trial, an appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria, an application for special leave to the High Court of Australia, and a High Court of Australia appeal, no doubt at a cost that significantly outweighed the entire cost of the transaction. 

In total, nine judges examined the lease in this case, and three of them found in favour of the tenant. 

The case concerned the construction of a lease by which the land was leased for a term of 99 years, commencing in 1988.

The landlord had wished to sell and the tenant wished to purchase the leased land for a consideration of $70,000 but they were precluded from doing so because of town planning restrictions.

The contracting parties, therefore, sought to achieve a similar result to a sale, by amending a standard 1980 printed form instrument of a farm lease, with the rent for the entire 99-year term ($70,000) being paid upon entry into the lease. 

The parties agreed to an amendment to clause 4 of the Lease, which contained certain words from the original template struck out, and replaced with:

4. [The Lessee] will pay all rates taxes assessments and outgoings whatsoever which during the said term shall be payable by the tenant in respect of the said premises.

Clause 4 of the agreement (relating to outgoings) was ambiguous. The clause could be read as imposing on the lessee an obligation to pay all rates etc; it could also be read as confining that obligation to those that are payable by the tenant.

In 1993, the original landlord sold the property (subject to the lease) to Ecosse Property Holdings Pty Ltd. In 2004, Gee Dee Nominees Pty Ltd took a transfer of the lease from the original tenant. Therefore, neither of the original parties to the transaction was a party to the litigation. 

Justice Croft (a highly respected property lawyer) found (see [2014] VSC 479) in favour of the landlord. He concluded (at paragraph 47) it was:  

… entitled to a declaration that the Lease on its proper construction provides that the defendant shall pay all rates, taxes, assessments and outgoings whatsoever in respect of the leased land, including land tax. 

On appeal to the Court of Appeal [2016] VSCA 23 (Santamaria, Kyrou and McLeish JJA), only Kyrou JA found in favour of the landlord. Santamaria and McLeish JJA are also highly respected lawyers, and they agreed with the tenant’s interpretation of the lease. 

Somehow, the High Court granted special leave to appeal. Interestingly, Gageler J noted that the case involved no point of disputed legal principle or question of public importance: [45].

In any event, to resolve the ambiguity in clause 4, the majority of the High Court  (Kiefel, Bell and Gordon JJ, and Gageler J in a separate judgment, with Nettle J dissenting) turned to the commercial purpose that the parties sought to be achieved by entering into the lease.

Kiefel, Bell and Gordon JJ (at paragraph 23), held that: 

The Court of Appeal majority's analysis lacks any reason that sounds in commercial sense for the parties to have chosen to amend the usual covenant respecting liability for rates, taxes and other outgoings contained in the standard form with a view to increasing the potential financial burden imposed on the lessor.

At paragraph 25, their Honours also held that:

... the lease does not provide an option to renew or to purchase for a nominal sum at the end of the term. The significance of this omission is suggested to favour the conclusion that the parties bargained for the lessor to bear the expense of any imposts levied on it as owner taking into account the value to the lessor of the reversion. An alternative view is the omission was inadvertent; neither the parties nor their advisers turning their minds to how matters might stand in 2087. Kyrou JA was drawn to that explanation. So are we. A surrounding circumstance of which the reasonable businessperson would be aware is that the lessor company was in receivership. It must be accounted highly unlikely that a receiver would agree to burden the lessor company with uncertain financial obligations over the term of a ninety-nine year lease. 

Finally, they concluded (at paragraphs 26 - 27):

The Court of Appeal majority's conclusion failed to give effect to the clear statement of the parties' objective in entering the agreement. It makes no commercial sense, having regard to that objective, for the lessor to remain liable for the payment of rates, taxes and other outgoings over the term of the lease. That is especially so where the lessor has taken as consideration for the lease the land value, with no provision for future adjustments. The lessor would have been exposed to uncertainties including the effect that any change of (lawful) land use by the lessee might have had on the amount of any rates, taxes and other outgoings.

On its proper construction cl 4 imposes on the lessee the obligation to pay all rates, taxes, assessments and outgoings whatsoever that are payable during the term of the lease in respect of the land. This construction accords with the commercial aim of the parties that the lessee assume the position of owner, so far as a lease may provide, with all of an owner's liabilities.

At paragraph 51 of his judgement, Justice Gageler noted:

Clause 4 can only be so construed for what it is: a clumsily tailored variation of an ill-fitting off-the-shelf precedent. To bring linguistic and grammatical precision to its construction would be to burden the clause with more weight than its jumble of words will bear.

Nettle J, who dissented in the High Court, is another highly respected judge. 

This case confirms that either party's interpretation of the ambiguous term of the lease could have ultimately succeeded. 

Conclusion 

The decision is an extreme example of the results that can flow from poor drafting of legal documents and using template documents that are not suitable for the required purpose. 

As a result, it sounds a warning to all lawyers tasked with drafting leases and contracts of sale of real estate: be judicious in the use of precedents and consider carefully whether the particular clause is fit for the purpose for which you are trying to employ it. 

WG Stark

Hayden Starke Chambers

Can parties to a mortgage agree to contract out of the statute of limitations?

1. In Price v Spoor, [2021] HCA 20, the High Court handed down a decision on 23 June 2021 about whether the parties to a mortgage could agree to contract out of the operation of the Queensland equivalent of the Limitation of Actions Act, 1958, and whether such an agreement was contrary to the public policy underpinning the Act.

Background facts

2. On 2 July 1998, Law Partners Mortgages P/L loaned $320,000 to Alan Leslie Price, Allana Mercia Price, James Burns Price and Gladys Ethel Price.

 

3. To secure the loan, Alan Leslie Price and Allana Mercia Price mortgaged land that they owned at Minden, west of Brisbane and Rosewood, near Ipswich in Queensland to Law Partners Mortgages P/L, and James Burns Price and Gladys Ethel Price mortgaged land that they owned at Tallegalla, near Ipswich in Queensland to Law Partners Mortgages P/L. 

4. The loan was not repaid on the due date, 2 July 1999. The parties negotiated a further agreement by which, among other things, the loan was extended to 2 July 2000.

5. A part of the mortgaged land was sold in November 2000, resulting in payment of accrued interest, legal costs, and a reduction of the principal loaned by $50,000. As at April 2001, the principle outstanding was therefore $270,000. 

6. Christine Claire Spoor and Kerry John Spoor were the trustees of a small pension fund. They became the mortgagees as successors in title to Law Partners Mortgages P/L.

7. In 2017, the mortgagees served notices under the Queensland Property Law Act requiring repayment of the principal, and accrued interest. They claimed over $4 million, including interest at the rate of 16.25% per annum, compounded monthly.

8. After the notices expired, the mortgagees sued the borrowers for repayment of the money loaned (plus interest) and sought to recover possession of the remaining security properties. 

9. The borrowers contended that the mortgagees were statute-barred from enforcing rights under the mortgages as a result of the expiry of the relevant time period under Queensland equivalent of the Limitation of Actions Act, 1958. 

10. Two of the borrowers further pleaded that the mortgagees’ titles under the mortgages had been extinguished pursuant to a provision in the Act, which provides, in effect, that where the time prescribed by the Act within which a person may bring an action to recover land has expired, the person’s title to that land “shall be extinguished”.

11. The mortgagees replied that the borrowers did not have the benefit of the Act as they had agreed, pursuant to clause 24 of the mortgages, that they would not plead any defence under the Act in proceedings to enforce the mortgagees’ rights as mortgagees.

12. Clause 24 was in the following terms:

RESTRICTIVE LEGISLATION

The Mortgagor covenants with the Mortgage[e] that the provisions of all statutes now or hereafter in force whereby or in consequence whereof any o[r] all of the powers, rights and remedies of the mortgagee and the obligations of the Mortgagor hereunder may be curtailed, suspended, postponed, defeated or extinguished shall not apply hereto and are expressly excluded insofar as this can lawfully be done.

Queensland Supreme Court

13. At first instance, Dalton J in the Supreme Court of Queensland [see [2019] QSC 53] refused the mortgagee’s application to strike out the borrowers’ defence as it related to the Statute of Limitations, and as a result entered judgment for the borrowers on the basis of their defence that the Statute of Limitations applied. Later, her Honour also made orders for the execution by the mortgagees of releases of the two mortgages. 

Queensland Court of Appeal

14. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Gotterson JA with whom both Sofronoff P and Morrison JA agreed) [see (2019) 3 QR 176; [2019] QCA 297] allowed the mortgagees’ appeal, overturned the trial judge’s orders and gave judgment for the mortgagees in reasons handed down on 17 December 2019, later including ancillary orders for possession of the security properties. 

15. At paragraphs 18 to 19 of Gotterson JA’s decision, he noted that: 

[18] Accordingly, in the view of the learned primary judge, there was no reason to doubt the validity of a borrower’s promise in a loan or mortgage document never to raise a limitations defence to an action to recover monies due to the lender. However, her Honour drew a distinction in the case of a promise not to raise a limitations defence in an action to recover possession of land.

[19] In summary, relying on observations of Mason CJ in Verwayen, the learned primary judge reasoned that a provision such as s 10(1)(a) of the Limitations Act conferred a benefit upon an individual in the nature of a statutory right to plead a certain defence, which could be waived. By contrast, s 24(1) thereof operated to extinguish rights, and not merely to confer a benefit. Hence, her Honour held, it was not open to parties to contract against the operation of that section. Further, here, s 24(1) had operated to extinguish the mortgagee’s title to the mortgaged land before the current proceedings had been commenced. Thus, clause 24 was incapable of altering the extinguishment of that title. 

16. At paragraph 34 of the Court of Appeal’s decision, Gotterson JA noted:

There appears to be no Australian authority in which separate consideration has been given to whether a contractual provision not to plead a limitations defence entered into for consideration before a cause of action to which it might be pleaded has arisen, is void as against public policy. However, judicial observations at the highest level in this country suggest that such a provision is not, for that reason, void.

17. Further, at paragraph 36 (emphasis added):

In [Verwayen], Brennan J said of the “right” … that it was introduced solely for the benefit of a defendant who must plead it before it is effective and who may waive it. Consistently with this, French CJ, Crennan, Keifel and Bell JJ in Westfield Management Ltd v AMP Capital Property Nominees Ltd [2012] HCA 54; (2012) 247 CLR 129 at 143-144 more recently said:

... a person upon whom a statute confers a right may waive or renounce his or her rights unless it would be contrary to the statute to do so. It will be contrary to the statute where the statute contains an express prohibition against ‘contracting out’ of rights. In addition, the provisions of a statute, read as a whole, might be inconsistent with a power, on the part of a person, to forego statutory rights. It is the policy of the law that contractual arrangements will not be enforced where they operate to defeat or circumvent a statutory purpose or policy according to which statutory rights are conferred in the public interest, rather than for the benefit of an individual alone. The courts will treat such arrangements as ineffective or void, even in the absence of a breach of a norm of conduct or other requirement expressed or necessarily implicit in the statutory text.

18. And at paragraph 38:

As both Mason CJ and Brennan J expressed it, what is conferred by a limitations statute is a right on a defendant to plead as a defence the expiry of a limitation period. The right is conferred on a defendant as an individual. As such, an individual may contract for consideration not to exercise the right, or to waive it, as a defendant.

19. At paragraph 64 of the judgment, after analysing the High Court’s decision in Verwayen dealing with the waiver of reliance on the statute of limitations in that case, Gotterson JA concluded:

These statements are, to my mind, illustrations that according to ordinary usage, the word “defeat” aptly describes the effect of limitation provisions.

20. At paragraphs 65 to 66, the Honourable Justice of Appeal concluded:

I infer from these references that their Honours considered that a limitation provision was the means whereby the cause of action was defeated, notwithstanding that it was for a defendant to plead it for that to happen. In other words, they did not consider that a need for the provision to be triggered by a pleading of it has the consequence that the provision is not the means by which the cause of action is defeated.

Unlike the learned primary judge, I have, therefore, concluded that clause 24, according to its terms, does apply to provisions in the Limitations Act by which the enforcement of a right, power or remedy of the mortgagee might be defended by the mortgagor and thereby defeated. Relevantly, those provisions include ss 10(1)(a), 13 and 26(1). 

21. The final finding of the Court of Appeal was in paragraph 76, as follows:

It follows that the [mortgagees]’ titles as mortgagee will have been extinguished under s 24(1) only if the s 13 period of limitation has expired in respect of them. In my view, it has not in this case. That is because, consistently with these reasons and as it was open to the parties to agree, clause 24 has at all times operated to exclude s 13 from applying to the mortgages. Thus, as between mortgagor and mortgagee, the period of limitation prescribed by s 13 has never applied and hence has never expired.

22. In those circumstances, the appeal was allowed unanimously. 

High Court

23. The borrowers obtained special leave to appeal to the High Court. 

24. As a result of the grant of special leave, the principal questions to be determined by the High Court in the appeal were whether:

a. clause 24 of each of the mortgages was void and unenforceable as contrary to the public policy underpinning the Act; and

b. section 24 of the Act operated automatically to extinguish the mortgagees’ title at the expiry of the time period.

High Court’s decision

25. The High Court unanimously dismissed the appeal from the Queensland Court of Appeal. Kiefel CJ and Edelman J delivered joint reasons. Gageler and Gordon JJ (in a joint judgment) substantially agreed with Kiefel CJ and Edelman J, as did Steward J separately. 

26. Kiefel CJ and Edelman J noted (at paragraphs 9 to 11 of their reasons – emphasis added): 

In WorkCover Queensland v Amaca Pty Ltd [2010] HCA 34; (2010) 241 CLR 420 at 433 per French CJ, Gummow, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ, … explained the effect of statutes of limitation by reference to what had been said by Gummow and Kirby JJ in The Commonwealth v Mewett (1997) 191 CLR 471 at 534-535; see also The Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394 at 404 per Mason CJ. In Mewett, their Honours said that in the case of a statute of limitations in the traditional form a statutory bar does not go to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the claim but rather to the remedy available, and therefore to the defences which may be pleaded. The cause of action is not extinguished by the statute and unless a defence relying on the statute is pleaded, the statutory bar does not arise for the consideration of the court.

What was said in Mewett accords with the reasons of Mason CJ in The Commonwealth v Verwayen (190) 170 CLR 394 at 405. Speaking there of then s 5(6) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) (which provided "No action for damages for negligence ..., where the damages claimed by the plaintiff consist of or include damages in respect of personal injuries to any person, shall be brought after the expiration of three years after the cause of action accrued”) his Honour said that although the terms of that provision are capable of being read as going to the jurisdiction of the court, limitation provisions of this kind have not been held to have that effect. Instead they have been held to bar the remedy but not the right and thereby create a defence to the action which must be pleaded (Citing Dawkins v Lord Penrhyn (1878) 4 App Cas 51 at 58-59; The Llandovery Castle [1920] P 119 at 124; Dismore v Milton [1938] 3 All ER 762; Ronex Properties Ltd v John Laing Construction Ltd [1983] QB 398; Ketteman v Hansel Properties Ltd [1987] AC 189 at 219. These statements have been applied with approval on a number of occasions in this Court (Georgiadis v Australian and Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (1994) 179 CLR 297 at 305; Berowra Holdings Pty Ltd v Gordon [2006] HCA 32; (2006) 225 CLR 364 at 372 [20], 373-374 [24]-[25]; Brisbane City Council v Amos (2019) 266 CLR 593 at 615-616 [49]; Minister for Home Affairs v DMA18 (2020) 95 ALJR 14 at 18 [4], 23 [30]; 385 ALR 16 at 19, 26. Mason CJ went on to observe that since the right to plead a limitations defence is conferred by statute a contention that the right is susceptible of waiver "hinges on the scope and policy" of the Act. The same may be said of the question whether a person may abandon the statutory right to plead a defence of limitation, by agreement.

27. The borrowers relied upon the public interest in the finality of litigation as being the public policy behind the Statute of Limitations. 

28. Kiefel CJ and Edelman J rejected that argument, holding:

Mason CJ concluded (The Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394 at 405-406) that by giving defendants a right to plead the expiry of the relevant time period as a defence, rather than imposing a jurisdictional restriction, the purpose of the Victorian Limitation Act could be discerned as one to confer a benefit on individuals "rather than to meet some public need which must be satisfied to the exclusion of the right of access of individuals to the courts". It was therefore possible, in his Honour's view, to "contract out" of statutory provisions of that kind.

29. At paragraph 35 of the joint judgement, Kiefel CJ and Edelman J held:

A defendant may bargain away the statutory right and that bargain may be enforced.

30. Justices Edelman and Gordon agreed with the judgment of Kiefel CJ and Edelman J and noted that the principal question in the appeal was whether clause 24 of the mortgages in question was void and unenforceable as contrary to the public policy underpinning the [Qld Limitation Act]. 

31. Their opinion (at paragraphs 38 - 40) was:

… That question raises a preliminary point of contractual construction and a subsidiary question about the appropriate relief if a party breaches a covenant not to rely upon a limitation defence.

32. Steward J noted at paragraph 66 of his judgment (in respect of construing the meaning of the terms of a contract): 

… there was no onus on the respondents to establish that their construction of cl 24 is correct. The issue of construction is a question of law (Deane v City Bank of Sydney [1904] HCA 44; (1904) 2 CLR 198 at 209 per Griffith CJ, Barton and O'Connor JJ), to be objectively determined having regard to the text and context of the contract, and the commercial purpose or objects which it was intended to secure (Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 37; (2015) 256 CLR 104 at 116 [46] [47] per French CJ, Nettle and Gordon JJ). 

33. At paragraphs 76 and 78 of his judgment, in considering whether the parties could contract out of the Statute of Limitations, Steward J noted: 

Two relevant propositions may be extracted from the reasons of Mason CJ in Verwayen.  [First] Whether or not a person can waive the defences conferred by a particular Statute of Limitations depends on the scope and policy of that Act; the test is whether the applicable provisions are "dictated by public policy" and were enacted "not for the benefit of any individuals or body of individuals, but for considerations of State” [at CLR 405]. If so, they cannot be excluded by contract. But if the benefit conferred by statute is otherwise private in nature, the law may permit the parties to exclude it.

…

78. The second proposition is that Parliaments have chosen to implement the public policy of finality in litigation by conferring on defendants a right to plead an applicable Statute of Limitations defence, rather than by imposing a restriction on jurisdiction (Verwayen at CLR 405). In that respect, no party disputed that it had been long established that the language used in the Limitation Act – an action "shall not be brought" – was a reference to a defendant having the capacity to plead a defence of limitation and not to the extinguishment of any underlying rights of a plaintiff (Brisbane City Council v Amos (2019) 266 CLR 593 at 599 [7] per Kiefel CJ and Edelman J). On that basis, Mason CJ in Verwayen concluded, for the purpose of considering whether the defences conferred by a Statute of Limitations (The Court in Verwayen was concerned with the Limitations of Actions Act 1958 (Vic)) may be waived, as follows (Verwayen at CLR 405-6] – emphasis added)):

"I conclude that the purpose of the statute is to confer a benefit upon persons as individuals rather than to meet some public need which must be satisfied to the exclusion of the right of access of individuals to the courts. On that basis, it is possible to 'contract out' of the statutory provisions, and it is equally possible to deprive them of effect by other means such as waiver. Put differently, the provisions are procedural rather than substantive in nature, which suggests that they are capable of waiver".

34. And at paragraph 88:

Once it is accepted that the policy of finality in litigation is one that is statutorily entrusted to each defendant, it follows that the limitation defences may be waived. It also follows, as a matter of logic and principle, that a party may agree to promise not to invoke those defences as part of the contractual bargain. 

35. Ultimately, all 5 members of the High Court who heard the appeal determined that it was permissible for the parties to agree to contract out of the provisions of the Limitation Act and that such an agreement was not contrary to public policy. The High Court also found that s 24 of the Limitation Act did not operate automatically to extinguish the respondents’ title at the expiry of the limitation period.

36. The Court noted that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not act as a statutory bar to bring proceedings or operate automatically to extinguish title, but instead give a party a defence.

37. Ultimately, the Court concluded the Limitation Act conferred rights on individuals rather than fulfilling any public need and therefore the contractual provision under which the borrowers waived their rights under the Limitation Act was effective.

Conclusions 

38. The Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) is similar to the Limitation of Actions Act, 1958 (Vic) (although the time limits are slightly different – 12 years to sue on a mortgage in Queensland, compared to 15 years in Victoria). 

39. The case shows the importance of borrowers obtaining proper advice about the terms of any loan documentation before borrowing (in particular, relating to terms like waiving any limitation rights). 

40. On the other hand, the decision should give lenders confidence that properly drafted loan documentation will protect their right to recover debts, even if there has been a very lengthy delay in taking action. 

41. It has been noted by other commentators that the decision did not deal with whether this type of contractual provision may be held void if it is ultimately found to be an unfair contract term under the Australian Consumer Law or under state legislation dealing with unfair contract terms.

WG Stark

Hayden Starke Chambers