Wang v One Direction Real Estate Pty Ltd

[2026] SASCA 28

Supreme Court of South Australia - Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

1. Contracts
2. › Illegal and void contracts
3. › Contracts contrary to public policy
1. Contracts
2. › Illegal and void contracts
3. › Effect of illegality — enforcement of illegal transactions
1. Equity
2. › Constructive trusts
3. › Joint venture — failed joint venture — beneficial interest
1. Equity
2. › Defences to equitable relief
3. › Clean hands doctrine — distinction from illegality doctrine

Section 24G of the Land and Business (Sale and Conveyancing) Act 1994 (SA) prescribes norms of conduct with criminal penalties and specific civil consequences (profit disgorgement on conviction, commission recovery as debt) but does not expressly or by necessary implication render void, voidable or unenforceable any contract or beneficial interest obtained by an agent in contravention of the provision
Where a regulatory statute makes elaborate provision for the consequences of contravention — including criminal penalties and specific civil remedies — it is not readily to be supposed that additional consequences (such as unenforceability of associated agreements or withholding of equitable relief) arise by implication or by operation of public policy considerations requiring coherence; the statutory sanctions are ordinarily treated as sufficient
A party raising statutory illegality as a basis for withholding equitable relief must plead the material facts and circumstances relied upon, including the contravening party's state of mind and any scheme to avoid the statute, and must articulate whether the statute directly produces a legal result or whether public policy coherence demands the withholding of relief; failure to do so, absent acquiescence in departure from pleadings, will ordinarily be fatal to the contention