Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd v Horne

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd v Horne revolved around a dispute regarding the sale of a proposed lot. The plaintiff, Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd, alleged that the defendant, Horne, failed to provide a rectification statement under section 22 of the Land Sales Act 1984 (Qld) concerning the floor area of the lot. The disclosure statement given to the purchaser contained a plan with a floor area of 177m2, while the contract permitted a variance of up to 5%. A subsequent statement issued under section 214 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) showed a different plan with a floor area of 176m2. The central issue was whether this discrepancy necessitated a rectification statement from the seller to the purchaser.

The court had to determine if the variance in the floor area between the initial disclosure statement and the later statement was significant enough to require a rectification statement under the statutory provisions. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim and their counterclaim, arguing that the plaintiff had no reasonable prospect of success. The court considered whether the discrepancy in the floor area between the disclosure statement and the later statement warranted a rectification statement under section 22 of the Land Sales Act.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for summary judgment. The court found that there were genuine issues for trial concerning whether the floor area variance was material enough to require a rectification statement. Consequently, the defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the application, to be assessed on a standard basis. Additionally, the plaintiff was directed to amend its reply and answer within seven days to specifically address subparagraph 4(e) of the defence.