In this article
Kooky
Builder of Shaka, the payment router that pays every agent their commission on closing date.
About Kooky and Shaka →The Supreme Court of Queensland ruled on 15 June 2026 that a caveat lodged by a company buying land at Caloundra should stay on the title, even though the seller says it has terminated that company's contract. The decision, published as [2026] QSC 130, was given by Justice Morrison six days after a hearing on 9 June.
The dispute is unusual because one property was put under contract twice, at the same price, to two different buyers. The seller relied on a special condition that allowed it to end the second contract if a caveat stopped it from handing over a registrable transfer. The second buyer, Reliance Developments Sunshine Coast Pty Ltd, said the contract was still on foot, lodged a caveat of its own and sued for the sale to be completed. The court was not asked to decide who finally gets the land. It was asked whether the buyer's caveat should be removed in the meantime, and it said no.
Figures as recorded in the published reasons, [2026] QSC 130, Supreme Court of Queensland, 15 June 2026.
Two contracts for one property
According to the published reasons, the land was being sold by an agent acting for the mortgagee, Amal Trustees Limited. In October 2025 that seller signed a contract with a company called Ruby 3.10 Pty Ltd. On 19 February 2026 Ruby did not settle, and the seller treated the contract as terminated.
The next day, 20 February, the seller signed a new contract with Reliance for the same price of $2,850,000. Reliance paid a deposit of $60,000. The new contract contained a special condition dealing with the termination of the earlier Ruby contract, and settlement was later extended to 6 May 2026.
Related readVacant possession or tenant in place: how a Queensland contract worksThe first buyer did not accept that it was out. On 24 February Ruby lodged a caveat over the title, disputing that its contract had been validly ended, and on 10 March it started its own court proceedings seeking specific performance, the order that compels a party to go through with a sale. The seller applied for summary judgment and for removal of Ruby's caveat; the reasons record that the application was dismissed by consent on 2 April after Ruby raised its arguments that the termination was unlawful.
By then Reliance had a problem. It had a signed contract and a settlement date, but another company's caveat sat on the title. On 9 April Reliance lodged a caveat to protect its own interest as buyer.
- 19 February 2026The first buyer does not settle. The seller treats that contract as terminated.
- 20 FebruaryThe seller signs a second contract, at the same price, with Reliance.
- 24 FebruaryThe first buyer lodges a caveat, disputing the termination.
- 9 AprilReliance lodges its own caveat as buyer under the second contract.
- 6 MayOn the extended settlement date, the seller ends the Reliance contract under a special condition.
The special condition the seller relied on
On 6 May, the day settlement was due, the seller gave notice terminating the Reliance contract. It relied on Special Condition 10.2, which the reasons describe as permitting termination if the seller was unable to provide a transfer capable of immediate registration, including because of a caveat.
On its face the condition fitted the facts: Ruby's caveat was on the title and a transfer to Reliance could not be registered over it. Reliance answered that the contract continued. It affirmed the contract, which is the legal term for a party choosing to keep an agreement alive instead of accepting that it has ended, and began its own proceedings for specific performance.
Events then moved quickly on the title itself. Ruby's caveat lapsed on 24 May. The reasons explain that this happened under section 126 of the Land Title Act 1994, because the Registrar was not notified within three months that proceedings had been started to establish the interest claimed. The caveat was removed from the title on 1 June. With that obstacle gone, the seller applied to remove the one remaining caveat, Reliance's. The reasons record the seller's position plainly: if Reliance's caveat came off, the seller would settle with Ruby straight away.
Related readThe body corporate certificate: what a Queensland unit buyer is toldWhy the caveat stayed
A court deciding whether to remove a caveat does not run the full trial. It asks two questions. Is there a serious question to be tried about the interest the caveat protects? And where does the balance of convenience lie while that question waits for a final hearing?
On the first, Justice Morrison found that Reliance had shown a serious question. Its caveat protects the interest of a buyer under a contract it says is enforceable. The judge did not accept that Special Condition 10.2 closed off the argument. In his reasoning, the wording did not necessarily exclude an implied term that the seller would cooperate so the buyer received the benefit of the bargain, for instance by extending time instead of terminating. The reasons note that such a term would not have required the seller to pursue expensive litigation against the first buyer; the contract left other ways of responding to a caveat.
The seller also pointed to Special Condition 23.1, an entire agreement clause, which says the written document is the whole of the deal. The court applied the Court of Appeal's 2021 decision in Rankin Investments (Qld) Pty Ltd v CMC Property Pty Ltd, which holds that an entire agreement clause does not stop a promise from being enforced where it arises by necessary implication.
On the second question the judge described the answer as relatively clear. Taking the caveat away would, in practice, destroy what Reliance was fighting for, because the land would be transferred to someone else before its claim was heard. The reasons cite earlier authority that it is a rare case in which a valid caveat is removed on the balance of convenience alone.
Related readThe building and pest clause in a Queensland contract, step by stepOne more factor counted. A party who keeps a caveat in place is normally asked for an undertaking as to damages, a promise to compensate the other side if the caveat turns out to have been wrongly maintained. Reliance had placed $3.86 million in its solicitors' trust account, more than the $2.85 million price. The court dismissed the seller's application on Reliance giving the usual undertaking and a further undertaking to leave those funds where they were until the court ordered otherwise. The seller was ordered to pay Reliance's costs on the standard basis.
What a caveat does, and how one lapses
A caveat is a notice recorded on a title by someone who claims an interest in the land. While it stays there, the registry will not register dealings that are inconsistent with the interest claimed. For a buyer between contract and settlement, it is the main way to stop the land being transferred or mortgaged to someone else.
It is not permanent. The Caloundra case shows both ends of a caveat's life within a few weeks. The first buyer's caveat was lodged on 24 February and lapsed on 24 May because the step the Land Title Act requires within three months was not taken. The second buyer's caveat survived a direct application to remove it because the buyer had started proceedings, shown an arguable claim and backed its position with money.
For the many buyers who never lodge one, the point is simply that a buyer under an enforceable contract is treated, as the reasons put it, as holding an equitable interest in the land, and a caveat is the tool the land titles system provides to protect that interest when something goes wrong before settlement.
Related readWhen a buyer or seller defaults on a Queensland contract: the remediesThis ruling decides the caveat, not the contract
The court found only that there is a serious question to be tried. Whether the seller validly ended either contract, and which buyer is entitled to the land, remain to be decided in the proceedings each buyer has started.
What the decision says about special conditions
Most Queensland home sales use the standard contract published by the Real Estate Institute of Queensland and the Queensland Law Society, and the Law Society tells its members that changes should be made by adding special conditions, not by altering the standard terms. The reasons in this case do not say which form the parties used, but the argument turned entirely on special conditions: one about the earlier contract, one giving the seller a right to terminate, one declaring the document to be the entire agreement.
Three points emerge from the reasoning, each tied to the stage the case has reached. A condition that lets one party walk away when a transfer cannot be registered will be read with the rest of the contract, and a court may find it arguable that the party must cooperate before using it. An entire agreement clause does not shut out terms that are necessarily implied. And a condition that depends on an earlier sale being finished is only as secure as that earlier termination; if the first buyer disputes it, the second buyer inherits the uncertainty.
None of that is new law. The decision applies existing authority to a set of facts that are rare in a house sale but less rare where a mortgagee or developer is selling. It does show how much weight a few lines of drafting can carry when a settlement date arrives and the title is not clear.
What happens next
The reasons leave two sets of proceedings on foot. The first buyer's claim for specific performance, started on 10 March, has not been decided, and the seller defends the validity of that termination. Reliance's claim for specific performance of the second contract, started after 6 May, is also waiting for a hearing. The funds Reliance placed in trust stay there under its undertaking until the court makes a further order.
Until one of those cases is determined, or the parties resolve them, the land stays where it is: transferred to neither buyer, with the second buyer's caveat recorded on the title.
Kooky, from Shaka
Kooky edits Queensland Estate and builds Shaka, the payment router he made for Queensland property professionals. One payment comes in, and every agent, agency and party in the deal receives their signed share on closing date.
