Burridge & Anor v Saville

Burridge & Anor v Saville [2023] QSC 244
Supreme Court of Queensland
Martin SJA
Sale of land – the plaintiffs wanted to buy one lot in a two-lot community title scheme at Mermaid Beach, and asked the owner’s real estate agent for details of the lot – the owner advised the real estate agent that there was no body corporate manager, no secretary, no common property on a register, no common property for which a buyer would be responsible, no annual contributions currently fixed by the body corporate for the administrative fund, sinking fund, or any other contributions, and that there was an insurance contribution of $1,367 per annum – the agent prepared and signed a Real Estate Institute of Queensland Standard Form Disclosure Statement with respect to the lot in accordance with these instructions and gave it to the plaintiffs – the disclosure statement disclosed the annual insurance payable and the fact that there was no body corporate committee, and said “N/A” under the headings for body corporate secretary, body corporate manager, annual levies for the administrative fund and sinking fund, improvements on common property for which the buyer would be responsible, body corporate assets required to be recorded on the register, and information required by a regulation module – the plaintiffs and the owner then entered into a contract for the sale of the lot – the plaintiffs later gave notice that they were terminating the contract under s206(5) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) for failure to provide a disclosure statement as required by s206(1) of that Act – the plaintiffs contended that the response “N/A” to the relevant questions had been ambiguous and could be interpreted as “not applicable”, “not available”, or “no answer”, and that, even if it were interpreted as “not applicable”, the owner had been required to state why the answer to the question was not applicable – the plaintiffs commenced proceedings, and the Court ordered the determination of separate questions whether the disclosure statement was “substantially complete” within the meaning of s206(4), and whether the plaintiffs had validly terminated the contract pursuant to s206(5) – held: In the circumstances of the disclosure statement, “N/A” meant “not applicable”, as that is its commonly understood meaning, and the disclosure that the body corporate was not compliant with the Act or Standard Module made “not applicable” the more natural meaning – if there is no information created by a body corporate in relation to a particular item required by s206 to be disclosed in the disclosure statement, an answer of “not applicable” by a vendor is accurate, and the vendor’s obligation of disclosure under s206 is satisfied to that extent – while there were better responses available to be inserted which might have avoided the current dispute, “N/A” satisfied the owner’s disclosure requirement for the purpose of s206 – separate questions answered that the disclosure statement was “substantially complete” within the meaning of s206(4), and the plaintiffs had not validly terminated the contract pursuant to s206(5).
Burridge & Anor