"The Lido" is a 5 storey apartment building
in Hampton, a bayside suburb of Melbourne. Apartments in the
building were sold off the plan in 2011, the building was built,
and most purchasers settled shortly after completion in November
One purchaser, however, refused to settle, terminated the
contract, and sued the developer for the return of her deposit. Her
case - Birch v Robek  VCC 68 - was decided by the County
Court of Victoria on 27 February 2014.
The facts of the case were:
Ms Birch was a 24 year old flight attendant. She had saved
$40,000 while living with her parents to buy her own apartment.
This was her first property purchase.
Ms Birch was looking for an apartment with an area over
40m˛ internally, because banks would lend 80% or more only on
apartments over this size.
When investigating "The Lido", Ms Booth was
handed a marketing brochure showing a plan of Apartment 205, giving
an internal area of 40.5m˛. The price of the apartment was
The contract annexed architectural plans containing a table
showing the area of Apartment 205 as 40.5m˛, and a plan of
subdivision indicating "interior face" boundaries.
Ms Birch signed the contract without reading it closely, and
paid the deposit of $35,900. Before the end of the 3 day cooling
off period she examined the contract plans carefully with a
magnifying glass to make sure they matched the brochure. She was
satisfied that they did.
The apartments were built and settlement was requested in
November 2012. Ms Birch's bank valued the apartment at
$330,000, with the valuer indicating that the living space in the
apartment was 32m˛. Because the apartment was less than
40m˛, the bank refused to finance to 80%.
When Ms Birch inspected the apartment she thought it was so
small as to be unliveable, and smaller than hotels she stayed in
when travelling as a flight attendant.
Ms Birch terminated the contract and sued for the deposit. The
developer later sold the apartment for $265,000, and counterclaimed
for the shortfall between that and the contracted price.
How did an apartment shown by plans to be 40.5m˛ come to
have an area of only 32m˛ when built?
Architects prepare their plans calculating areas to the
midpoint of common walls. This method is in accordance
with guidelines issued by the Property Council of Australia. The
architectural plans for the Lido were prepared on this basis. The
measurements in the marketing brochure were obtained from the
architectural plans, giving the same area.
However, as is typical in high-rise developments, the plan of
subdivision provided for interior face boundaries. This means that
the owner of the apartment has title to the area bounded by the
internal surface of common walls. The difference between the area
measured to the midpoint and the area measured to the interior face
of common walls can be substantial. In the case of Apartment 205 at
the Lido, the difference in area was about 12%.
While caveat emptor or "buyer beware" is
still extremely important in the purchase of property, the common
law does provide some protection to purchasers. In Flight v
Booth (1834) 131 ER 1160, for instance, it was held that where
a misdescription is so significant that the purchaser would never
have entered the contract if he or she had known the true nature of
the property, the contract can be avoided altogether.
In Birch, the Court was satisfied that Ms Birch would
not have entered the contract had she known the true internal area
of the apartment, and she was therefore entitled to rescind at
common law. By representing in the marketing brochure that the
apartment would have an internal area of 40.5m˛, the developer
was also found to have engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct
contrary to the Australian Consumer Law, which Ms Birch
A disclaimer in the marketing brochure and extensive provisions
in the contract attempting to protect the developer did not help
the developer in these circumstances.
The Court ordered repayment of the deposit.
When marketing sales off-the-plan, developers and their
consultants must be aware of the different methodologies in the
preparation of architectural plans and plans of subdivision.
Representations in marketing materials about the size of
apartments must be considered carefully.
Architectural plans will not necessarily indicate what area a
purchaser is buying.
What the purchaser is buying is determined by the plan of
Purchasers must be very careful about area when buying off the
plan. Caveat emptor (with limits).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The Council announced planning policies to encourage more inner suburban retirement village and aged care development.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).