Login
‘Minor detail’: Buyers lose bid to cancel $7.5m sale over $9k strata levy rise
A Gold Coast couple who tried to pull out of a $7.5 million sale over an $8,900 annual strata levy increase have been forced to complete the sale.
A couple who tried to withdraw from their purchase of a $7.5 million penthouse in Surfers Paradise over a rise in body corporate fees have been ordered to complete the transaction.
At the Supreme Court of Queensland last week, Judge Rebecca Treston told the buyers, Peter Kuk and Cindy Kuk, to complete the purchase by 20 November 2026.
The couple signed the contract for the sale of the penthouse on 3 March, paying a deposit of $375,000, with settlement originally due on 3 July 2026.
The contract was conditional on the Kuks being “absolutely satisfied” with their due diligence inquiries within seven days of the contract date, or they were entitled to terminate the sale and have their deposit returned.
While conducting due diligence, they were told by a conveyancing clerk that there would be increased body corporate levies over the coming years, although it was unknown how much they would be.
The clerk informed them that increases to the administration fund, sinking fund and special levies were to be considered at an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) later that month.
At the time they were informed, the pair still had the opportunity to terminate the contract and have their deposit refunded in full, but they did not seriously consider pulling out.
Peter Kuk told the court they believed that once they owned the apartment, they could attend body corporate meetings and have some influence on the amount of any levy increases.
At the EGM, the decision was made to increase the administrative fund and sinking fund by a total of $8,943.79 per year, approximately $171 per week.
The buyers did not find out about the changes until 10 July, the day before settlement, with the increases already being implemented from the period commencing 1 June.
They sought to terminate the contract, arguing the seller had failed to formally notify them of the meeting’s resolutions, despite the fact that they were warned about the potential increases beforehand.
They also claimed the levy increases would significantly impact them financially, relying on a contractual clause allowing termination in those circumstances.
Free investor loan check
Better property decisions start with smarter lending.
A free 15-minute finance check for property investors.
What are your lending goals?
Choose a goal to request a callback.
Ready to talk?
Book a 15-minute call →Finni Pty Ltd · Australian Credit Licence 384324 · Privacy
However, the court found the buyers knew about the proposed increases before their due diligence deadline and had still chosen to proceed.
Additionally, Judge Treston found the buyers failed to prove they would be significantly impacted by the levy hikes.
Instead, she said the extra $8,943.79 in costs would likely be a “minor detail” to the buyers, considering their portfolio of investment properties and other financial commitments.
“The evidence suggests that the respondents are wealthy investors who did not regard the increased levies as an impassable issue,” she said.
In addition to completing the sale, the Kuks were ordered to pay interest at 10.84 per cent per annum on the unpaid purchase price from 10 July until settlement, and to also cover the seller’s legal costs.
Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make Smart Property Investment a preferred news source on Google.
Click here to add Smart Property Investment as a preferred news source.