Conjunction Agreements in Queensland: How to Structure, Document and Enforce Split Deals

You’ve agreed verbally with another agent to work a deal together — your listing, their buyer — and the inspection is tomorrow morning. You have a handshake and a text thread. That is not enough. In Queensland real estate, a conjunction agreement that cannot be proved in writing is a conjunction agreement that cannot be enforced, and the moment the co-agent’s buyer submits an offer without you in the room, you will find out exactly what a verbal arrangement is worth.

This is the practical guide to getting a conjunction agreement in Queensland right, before the buyer walks through the door.

What a Conjunction Agreement Actually Does Under Queensland Law

A conjunction agreement is the written contract between two separately licensed real estate agencies under which they agree to cooperate on a transaction — typically where one agency holds the listing and another introduces the buyer. The arrangement is sometimes called a co-agency or split-deal arrangement. The commission is earned by the listing agent under their existing appointment with the vendor, and a portion of it is then shared with the co-agent under the terms of the conjunction agreement.

Under the Property Occupations Act 2014 (QLD), a “conjunctional agent” is explicitly defined as a property agent who acts, for a sale of property, in conjunction with a property agent appointed for the purposes of that sale. This is a statutory recognition of the arrangement, but the Act does not prescribe a mandatory form for the conjunction agreement itself — it merely acknowledges that such arrangements exist and that the conjunctional agent operates within the framework established by the listing agent’s appointment.

The critical legal point is this: the conjunction agreement is a contract between the two agencies. The vendor is not a party to it. The vendor’s obligations run only to the listing agent, under the Form 6 appointment. When commission is paid at settlement, it flows to the listing agent’s trust account — and it is then the listing agent’s obligation, under the conjunction agreement, to disburse the co-agent’s share. This architecture means everything depends on the conjunction agreement being well-drafted and signed before the buyer is introduced to the property.

The most significant practical risk in a conjunction deal is not that the co-agent is dishonest. It is that the deal proceeds without a signed agreement, the relationship deteriorates, and you end up arguing over who was the effective cause of the sale and what was agreed. That argument then gets heard at QCAT — and the party without documentation almost always loses.

The REIQ Standard Form and What It Covers

The REIQ publishes a standard Conjunctional or Referral Agreement (form EF032), available to REIQ members. It is a well-constructed starting point, and using it is strongly preferable to drafting something ad hoc. Agents should understand both what the form includes and, critically, where it leaves gaps that custom clauses must address.

The EF032 standard form generally records the parties’ details — the listing agency and the co-agency — along with the property address, the agreed commission split expressed either as a percentage of total commission or a fixed dollar amount, and a confirmation that both agencies hold current Queensland licences. It identifies the buyer being introduced and specifies that the conjunction arrangement is tied to that specific buyer (or buyers). It also records the date of introduction and typically includes a clause confirming the co-agent’s entitlement to their share of commission upon the introduction buyer completing a purchase of the property.

The form is practical and widely used across the industry precisely because it captures the core terms quickly. For a straightforward residential conjunction deal where both parties know and trust each other, and where the split, the buyer’s identity, and the payment trigger are all unambiguous, the EF032 gets the job done.

Where the standard form routinely falls short is in four areas: the precise definition of the payment trigger, the protection period after introduction, the handling of disputes about “going direct,” and the consequences of a buyer who is introduced under one agency’s conjunction but later returns under different circumstances. These are the areas where disputes arise and where carefully drafted custom clauses make the difference between a recoverable debt and an unenforceable expectation.

Custom Clauses You Need Beyond the Standard Form

Before a buyer inspects, you need to have the conjunction agreement signed. Before you sign it, you need to read it carefully and consider whether the standard terms actually cover your situation. In most cases — particularly in active markets where buyers are motivated and agents are competitive — they don’t fully protect you.

Defining the Payment Trigger Precisely

The most litigated issue in Queensland conjunction disputes is the payment trigger: at what point does the co-agent become entitled to their share of commission? The REIQ form typically links entitlement to the buyer completing a purchase of the property. That sounds clear, but it leaves open several questions. Does “completion” mean exchange (contract becoming binding), satisfaction of all conditions, or settlement? What happens if the buyer exchanges but the contract is terminated under a finance clause? What happens if the buyer buys the property six months later, directly from the vendor, after the original contract fell over?

Your custom clause should specify:

• The trigger event (settlement is the most common, and defensible)
• Whether entitlement vests at exchange or settlement (not the same thing in a subject-to-finance deal)
• Whether the entitlement survives contract termination and re-introduction
• The currency of payment — within how many business days of the listing agent receiving commission

Being specific here is not distrustful. It is professional. Any agent who objects to a clearly worded payment trigger clause should prompt you to reconsider the arrangement.

The Protection Period

A protection period clause states that if your introduced buyer purchases the property within a defined period after the conjunction agreement is signed, the co-agent’s entitlement applies — regardless of whether the co-agent is still actively involved in the transaction at that point. Without this clause, the listing agent has an incentive to let the conjunction lapse and then proceed with the buyer directly.

Industry practice varies, but a protection period of 90 to 180 days after the date of introduction is common in residential transactions. For commercial or higher-value deals, longer protection periods may be warranted. The protection period should be triggered from the date of the buyer’s first inspection or first formal introduction to the property under the conjunction arrangement, whichever is earlier. That date should be recorded in the agreement itself.

The “Going Direct” Clause

This is arguably the most practically important custom clause. You must explicitly address what happens if the co-listing agent, the vendor, or the buyer circumvent the conjunction arrangement and transact directly. The clause should provide that if the identified buyer purchases the property without the listing agent’s commission being paid through the normal channel — including any direct deal between vendor and buyer — the listing agent remains personally liable to pay the co-agent’s agreed share.

Without this clause, an agent who “goes direct” after an introduction has been made can potentially argue that no commission was received from the vendor, and therefore no obligation to pay the co-agent arises. That argument has been tested in Queensland courts, and the outcome depends entirely on how the agreement is drafted.

Effective Cause of Sale in a Conjunction Context

Effective cause of sale is the legal doctrine that determines which party is entitled to commission where multiple agents or events contributed to a sale. Under the Property Occupations Act 2014, commission entitlement turns on who was the effective cause of completing the transaction. The Act itself includes a worked example: where an owner appoints an agent to sell, and a buyer purchases the property, the question of who constitutes the effective cause of that sale determines which party is entitled to claim commission — and the Act expressly notes this is fact-dependent.

In a conjunction context, effective cause becomes relevant when there is a dispute about whether the co-agent truly “introduced” the buyer, or whether the buyer was already known to the listing agent, had inspected previously, or came to the transaction by some other means. The doctrine does not simply reward whoever got to the buyer first — it examines whether the agent’s actions were the proximate, operative cause of the sale proceeding.

Courts have consistently held that introduction alone is not always sufficient to establish effective cause. The co-agent must be able to demonstrate a causal chain between their introduction and the eventual exchange. This means your documentation must record not just that the buyer was introduced, but how, when, and in what capacity. A signed register of inspection, a timestamped email confirming the introduction, and a written record of any further communications between the co-agent and the buyer are all valuable.

If a dispute goes to QCAT, the tribunal will weigh the evidence of effective cause. The co-agent who can produce an email chain showing they brought the buyer to the property, communicated on price and terms, and remained engaged until exchange is in a far stronger position than one who can only show they texted the listing agent to say “I’ve got a buyer.”

When the Co-Agent Goes Direct to the Buyer

This is the scenario agents dread — and it happens. An agent introduces a buyer under a conjunction arrangement, and then, rather than negotiating through the listing agent as agreed, either the co-agent contacts the vendor directly or the buyer reapproaches the vendor directly after the conjunction agreement expires or is allowed to lapse. The commission is paid, the deal settles, and the listing agent receives the full amount without disbursing the co-agent’s share.

The 2020 Queensland District Court decision in Equity 2 Pty Ltd v Best Price Real Estate [2020] QDC 180 is the most instructive recent case on this issue. The court in that matter examined the enforceability of a conjunction arrangement and the circumstances under which one party could claim entitlement to a share of commission where the other party had sought to exclude them from the transaction. The decision underscores that the conjunction agreement’s written terms govern the parties’ rights, and that vague or oral arrangements leave the aggrieved agent in a highly uncertain position. Where the agreement was properly documented and the introduction was established, the court was prepared to enforce the co-agent’s entitlement. Where documentation was absent or ambiguous, the outcome favoured the party who retained commission.

The practical lesson from this decision is direct: a well-drafted, signed conjunction agreement, combined with contemporaneous evidence of the buyer introduction, gives you a viable cause of action if you are cut out of a deal. Without it, you are litigating a breach of an agreement you cannot clearly prove existed.

If you find yourself in a situation where the co-agent has proceeded without you, your immediate steps are:

• Compile every piece of written communication establishing the introduction and the agreed terms
• Obtain a copy of the contract of sale (available through titles search or your solicitor) to confirm whether settlement has occurred
• Issue a formal demand for the agreed commission share, referencing the conjunction agreement
• If no response, lodge a claim at QCAT under the commission dispute jurisdiction

QCAT has jurisdiction to hear commission disputes between agents and is often faster and less expensive than the District Court for straightforward split-payment claims. The jurisdictional limit for QCAT’s minor civil disputes stream applies, so for larger commission disputes — typically on higher-value properties — the District Court may be the appropriate forum, as it was in Equity 2 Pty Ltd v Best Price Real Estate.

Payment Timing, Trust Accounts and Disbursement

Commission on a Queensland residential sale is held in the listing agent’s trust account and disbursed at settlement in accordance with the Property Occupations Act 2014. The Act requires that commission may be claimed only for actual amounts — agents cannot inflate commission claims or levy charges beyond what is properly authorised. Trust account obligations apply strictly, and the listing agent is responsible for ensuring the correct disbursement of any conjunction share.

The conjunction agreement should specify exactly when the co-agent’s share is to be paid. The cleanest formulation is: within [X] business days of the listing agent receiving the vendor’s commission into their trust account. Five business days is a workable standard. Anything longer than 14 business days after settlement receipt should be scrutinised — there is no legitimate reason for a listing agent to hold a co-agent’s commission for an extended period after settlement.

The co-agent’s share should be paid directly to the co-agency’s nominated account, not to an individual salesperson. Payments between licensees must flow through licensed entities. This is a compliance requirement, not merely a convention.

For agents settling conjunction splits involving crypto assets — an emerging but increasingly present reality in Australian commercial and high-value residential transactions — tools like Shaka (shaka.deal) allow a conjunction payment to be routed simultaneously to multiple wallets at the moment of settlement, without the funds being held at any intermediate point.

Trust account record-keeping obligations under the POA 2014 also extend to conjunction payments. The listing agent must maintain records showing the basis on which commission was disbursed, and those records must reconcile with the conjunction agreement on file. An audit trail matters here: if the Office of Fair Trading ever queries a commission disbursement, the conjunction agreement is the document that justifies the payment.

Documentation That Holds Up at QCAT

QCAT hears a significant number of commission disputes between Queensland real estate agencies each year, and conjunction disputes form a recurring category. The tribunal is not sympathetic to informal arrangements, and the agent who walks in with a folder of WhatsApp screenshots is already behind.

The documentation package that survives QCAT scrutiny consists of:

• A signed conjunction agreement (REIQ EF032 or custom equivalent) executed before the buyer’s first inspection
• Evidence of the buyer’s identity as confirmed in the agreement (full legal name, contact details, and — where practical — a copy of the buyer’s identification)
• A timestamped record of introduction (email confirmation, inspection register entry, or CRM note)
• Subsequent communications between the co-agent and buyer that demonstrate ongoing connection to the transaction
• The contract of sale confirming the buyer named in the conjunction agreement is the purchasing party
• Evidence of settlement (either from PEXA settlement records or the conveyancer’s confirmation)

Each of these items serves a specific evidentiary purpose. The signed agreement establishes the contractual obligation. The introduction record establishes the factual basis for effective cause. The subsequent communications rebut any argument that the buyer abandoned the introduction and came to the property independently. The contract and settlement records establish that the triggering event occurred.

A point that agents frequently overlook: the conjunction agreement must be executed by a licensed principal of each agency, not merely by a salesperson. A salesperson cannot bind their employing agency to a commission-sharing arrangement — only the licensed real estate agent or principal licensee can. If your agreement is signed by a salesperson on the other side, its enforceability may be questioned.

Keep the original signed agreement on file for a minimum of five years. The POA 2014 imposes record retention obligations on licensees, and commission disputes can surface months or even years after settlement — particularly where fraud or misrepresentation is alleged.

Disclosure Obligations to the Vendor

One area that is frequently overlooked in the practical rush of getting a conjunction deal signed is the listing agent’s disclosure obligations to the vendor. The vendor appointed the listing agent to sell their property. If that agent is now sharing commission with a third-party agency, the vendor is entitled to know.

The Property Occupations Act 2014 imposes disclosure obligations to prospective buyers and to vendors in various circumstances, and agents must ensure they are not in breach of these by failing to disclose material arrangements affecting the transaction. While the Act does not mandate that the vendor consent to every conjunction arrangement, best practice — and the REIQ’s professional conduct guidance — is that the listing agent discloses the conjunction to the vendor, ideally in writing.

This disclosure serves two purposes. First, it protects the listing agent from any subsequent claim that the vendor did not know third-party agents were involved. Second, in the event the vendor disputes the listing agent’s commission (claiming they should not have to pay the full rate given that another agency was involved), the disclosure record confirms the vendor was aware of and did not object to the arrangement.

The disclosure should note the name of the co-agency, the fact of the conjunction arrangement, and confirm that the total commission payable by the vendor is not increased by the arrangement — the co-agent’s share comes out of the listing agent’s commission, not in addition to it.

What This Means for Queensland Agents

If the buyer inspection is tomorrow and you do not have a signed conjunction agreement, postpone the inspection until you do. That is not an overstatement — it is the only rational position given the risk. The EF032 form can be sent, executed electronically, and returned within hours. There is no logistical reason to allow a buyer to inspect under an unprotected verbal arrangement.

Beyond the immediate urgency, every agent who regularly works conjunction deals should maintain a template agreement that supplements the REIQ standard form with the four custom clauses discussed above: the precise payment trigger, the protection period, the “going direct” clause, and the consequences of buyer re-introduction. Have this template reviewed by a Queensland property lawyer and use it as your default.

The 2020 District Court decision in Equity 2 Pty Ltd v Best Price Real Estate [2020] QDC 180 confirms that courts will enforce conjunction agreements when they are properly documented. The corollary is equally important: they will struggle to protect you when they are not.

Document the introduction in real time. A timestamped email sent to the co-agent at the moment of introduction — “confirming that [buyer name] was introduced to [property address] at [time] today under our conjunction agreement dated [date]” — takes ninety seconds to write and has genuine evidentiary value twelve months later at QCAT.

Finally, understand the flow of money. Commission goes to the listing agent’s trust account. The conjunction share is disbursed from there to the co-agency. That flow must be reflected in the trust account records, justified by the conjunction agreement, and executed on time. Holding a co-agent’s commission after settlement without a legitimate reason is not just bad faith — it potentially exposes the listing agent to professional conduct complaints under the POA 2014.

Run these deals properly. The paperwork is not the obstacle to the deal — it is the mechanism by which both agents get paid.