Questcrown P/L v Insignia Towers (Southport) P/L

[2007] QCA 378

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Contract
2. › Illegal and void contracts
3. › Contracts illegal by statute
4. › Whether statutory prohibition on offering property for sale without asbestos compliance rendered contract void
5. › Whether legislative purpose fulfilled without avoiding contract
6. › Workplace Health and Safety Regulation 1997 (Qld), s 73
7. › Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 (Qld), s 24(1)
1. Contract
2. › Illegal and void contracts
3. › Implied statutory prohibition
4. › Factors relevant to determining whether statute impliedly prohibits contract formation
5. › Construction of statutory language
6. › Whether penalty sufficient to fulfil statutory purpose
1. Trade Practices
2. › Misleading or deceptive conduct
3. › Sale of commercial property
4. › Whether failure to disclose non-compliance with workplace health and safety obligation constituted misleading or deceptive conduct
5. › Effect of 'as is where is' and due diligence contractual provisions
6. › Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 52
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Summary judgment
3. › Originating application
4. › Test for summary disposition of originating process
5. › Whether respondent has real prospect of successfully opposing orders sought
6. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 5, 8, 9, 11, 14, 292

Quick Take

A vendor's failure to comply with s 73 of the Workplace Health and Safety Regulation 1997 (Qld) — requiring compliance with the Asbestos Management Code before offering a workplace structure for sale — does not render a contract of sale void or unenforceable, because the legislative purpose is fulfilled by the compliance obligation shifting to the new owner. The statutory prohibition on offering for sale without compliance is directed at ensuring compliance, not at preventing sales. However, Atkinson J's dissent identifies that the question may depend on whether the contract was formed by the vendor's offer (arguably prohibited) or the purchaser's offer (arguably not prohibited), a factual question that could not be resolved summarily.