Conveyancing—the legal process of transferring property ownership—often appears straightforward. However, even routine transactions can give rise to significant legal and commercial risk if contractual obligations are not met, procedural requirements are overlooked, or disputes escalate.

Two recent Queensland decisions, Storey v Britton 2025 QSC 125 and Britton v Storey 2025 QCA 127, illustrate how quickly a property transaction can shift from “business as usual” to costly litigation. The cases highlight the importance of careful preparation, strict adherence to deadlines, and effective management of disputes once they arise.

Key Risks in Conveyancing

1. Failure to Meet Settlement Deadlines

Missed settlement dates remain one of the most common triggers for disputes. In Storey v Britton 2025 QSC 125, the Brittons agreed to sell a property to the Storeys for $3,264,000. Settlement was scheduled for 16 August 2024 and later extended to 19 August 2024. The sellers did not settle on the agreed date, and the buyers pursued specific performance.

Settlement delays can arise from funding issues, administrative error, inadequate coordination between advisers, or incomplete pre-settlement steps. The consequences may include contractual termination rights, default interest, damages exposure, and litigation costs—often disproportionate to the underlying delay.

 

2. Non-Compliance with Disclosure Obligations (Including Court-Ordered Disclosure)

Disclosure obligations are central to resolving disputes efficiently and to ensuring procedural fairness once proceedings commence. In Storey v Britton 2025 QSC 125, Ms Britton failed to comply with a court order requiring delivery of a list of documents by a specified deadline. The disclosure was late, incomplete, and non-compliant with rule 214(1)(a) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).

Non-compliance can cause delay, increase costs, and weaken a party’s credibility before the Court. Importantly, disclosure obligations are not optional; where court orders are made, strict compliance is expected.

 

3. Health and Personal Circumstances Affecting Performance

Personal circumstances—particularly health issues—can materially affect a party’s capacity to meet contractual or procedural requirements. In Storey v Britton 2025 QSC 125, Ms Britton referred to health and vision issues as contributing factors to the delayed disclosure.

While such circumstances may be genuine, courts typically require cogent evidence and will not readily excuse non-compliance where obligations could have been met through timely assistance, delegation, or appropriate procedural steps. Where difficulties arise, early and documented action to manage them is critical.

 

4. Financial Risk and Market Movements

Property transactions are inherently exposed to market fluctuation. In Britton v Storey 2025 QCA 127, the appellants contended the property had increased in value—from an agreed sale price of $3 million in January 2024 to an asserted value of $4.1 to $4.5 million by mid-2025—and argued that enforcement at the contract price would cause financial detriment.

This illustrates a recurring risk: once parties are contractually bound, subsequent market changes (favourable or unfavourable) generally do not provide a basis to avoid performance. Careful consideration of timing, price, and contractual protections is essential at the contracting stage.

 

5. Litigation Risk and Adverse Costs Consequences

Once a conveyancing dispute enters litigation, costs exposure can escalate rapidly. In Storey v Britton 2025 QSC 125, the Court ordered Ms Britton to pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the disclosure application on an indemnity basis due to non-compliance with court orders. In Britton v Storey 2025 QCA 127, the appellants were ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of an application for a stay of enforcement.

Costs orders (including indemnity costs) are a significant commercial risk. They commonly arise where a party fails to comply with procedural requirements, pursues unmeritorious applications, or causes unnecessary delay.

 

6. Emotional and Psychological Strain

Conveyancing disputes frequently involve substantial assets and, in many cases, family homes. In Britton v Storey 2025 QCA 127, the appellants described the stress and difficulty of the litigation process, compounded by self-representation. Although the Court acknowledged the human impact of the proceedings, it reiterated that personal circumstances do not displace legal obligations.

Dispute escalation can have real operational and personal consequences. Early, structured management of issues can materially reduce the duration and intensity of disputes.

 

7. Self-Representation and Procedural Missteps

Both decisions illustrate the practical risks of self-representation in complex conveyancing disputes. In Storey v Britton 2025 QSC 125, Ms Britton represented herself yet failed to comply with orders and procedural requirements. In Britton v Storey 2025 QCA 127, the appellants’ lack of procedural knowledge added complexity to the matter.

Procedural non-compliance can lead to missed deadlines, adverse rulings, costs consequences, and reduced prospects of achieving a favourable outcome.

Practical Takeaways

To reduce the likelihood of disputes and minimise exposure if problems arise, parties should:

  • Plan early for settlement, including finance approvals, document readiness, and coordination between agents, lenders, and advisers.
  • Treat contractual and court-imposed deadlines as critical, and address any anticipated slippage immediately.
  • Maintain complete and accurate records, particularly where issues may later require explanation or evidence.
  • Communicate promptly and transparently, as unmanaged misunderstandings can crystallise into formal disputes.
  • Manage risk proactively, including consideration of market conditions and appropriate contractual protections at the outset.

How Spire Law Can Assist

Spire Law regularly advises clients on residential and commercial conveyancing, risk management in property contracts, and the resolution of disputes (including where specific performance, termination, or costs issues arise). Where a transaction becomes contested, early strategic intervention can often reduce cost, delay, and disruption.

If assistance is required in relation to a property transaction or conveyancing dispute, Spire Law can provide tailored guidance aligned with the contract terms and applicable procedural requirements.