Misleading Conduct in Queensland Real Estate: Cases, Penalties and How to Stay Compliant

A buyer makes an offer based on your verbal assurance that the property returns $650 per week in rent. Post-settlement, they discover the tenancy agreement sits at $495. You believed the figure you quoted. You passed on what the vendor told you without checking it. Under Queensland law, that may be enough to expose you — and your principal — to a formal complaint, a compensation claim, and disciplinary proceedings.

Misleading conduct in Queensland real estate is not confined to deliberate fraud. The law casts a far wider net, and the cases that reach QCAT and the courts are often built on carelessness, overstatement, or the strategic omission of an inconvenient fact. Every licensed agent and salesperson in this state needs to understand exactly where those lines are drawn — and what happens when they are crossed.

The Legislative Framework: Two Layers of Obligation

Queensland agents operate under a dual compliance architecture for misleading and deceptive conduct. Get comfortable with both, because a complainant can pursue either — or both simultaneously.

The Property Occupations Act 2014 (Qld)

Section 212 of the Property Occupations Act 2014 (Qld) stipulates that a licensee or real estate salesperson must not represent to another person anything that is false and misleading relating to the letting, exchange or sale of real property.

The prohibition extends specifically to false or misleading representations relating to the value of the real property at the date of sale; the potential income from the leasing of the land; if the land has been previously sold, the date of the sale and the consideration for the sale; and how the purchase of the real property may affect the incidence of income taxation on the buyer.

Critically, the Act’s definition of “false or misleading,” for a representation, includes the wilful concealment of a material fact in the representation. This means silence — when you know something material and choose not to disclose it — can constitute a breach in exactly the same way as a positive misstatement. This is a point that agents repeatedly underestimate.

A person may also make a claim, under the Administration Act, against the fund if they suffer financial loss because of a contravention of this section. Access to the Claim Fund is a feature of Queensland’s framework that distinguishes it from many other jurisdictions — it means affected buyers and sellers have a recovery pathway even where the individual agent has limited personal assets.

The Australian Consumer Law

Sitting above the Property Occupations Act is the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), contained in Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), which is mirrored at the state level through the Australian Consumer Law (Queensland). Section 212 of the Property Occupations Act does not limit another Act or law about false or misleading representations, and the ACL (Queensland) at section 30 governs false or misleading representations about the sale of land.

The ACL is technology-neutral and medium-neutral. It applies to online listings, social media posts, text messages, and verbal representations at open homes just as readily as it applies to printed marketing brochures. Any communication “in trade or commerce” that creates a false impression in the mind of a reasonable person can engage its provisions.

Under the ACL, corporations now face penalties of up to $50 million, three times the benefit obtained, or 30% of adjusted turnover — whichever is greater. Individual agents can be fined up to $2.5 million for serious breaches. These are federal-level maximums for the most serious contraventions. At the state level, the Property Occupations Act carries its own significant exposure.

Penalties Under the Property Occupations Act: What the Numbers Mean

The Property Occupations Act 2014 imposes penalties of up to $77,625 for false representations. This represents 540 penalty units — the maximum penalty under section 212 is 540 penalty units.

Queensland penalty units are adjusted periodically. At current rates, 540 penalty units translates to a substantial fine for an individual agent or salesperson. For agencies operating as corporate entities, the exposure under the ACL is exponentially higher. An agency found to have breached the ACL is liable for a fine of either $10 million or three times the value of the accrued benefit. If there is no way to calculate the benefit, then the penalty may be 10% of the agency’s previous annual turnover.

Financial penalties are only part of the picture. Beyond financial penalties, agents also face licence suspension, civil lawsuits, and irreparable reputational damage. QCAT has the power to suspend or cancel a licence on disciplinary grounds, require completion of further training, and impose conditions on future practice. In serious cases, a finding of misleading conduct effectively ends a career.

QCAT may hear disciplinary proceedings against real estate agents for alleged breaches of the Property Occupations Act 2014. QCAT may also hear claims for compensation due to misleading or deceptive conduct by real estate agents. These two streams — disciplinary and compensatory — can run concurrently, meaning an agent faces potential licence consequences and a damages award arising from the same conduct.

Where Queensland Agents Commonly Cross the Line

Understanding the theory matters less than recognising the specific conduct patterns that generate complaints and proceedings. These are the scenarios that generate the most exposure in practice.

Price Misrepresentation and Underquoting

In Queensland, a real estate agent must not distribute misleading price guides in marketing and advertising material, or through written or verbal communication with prospective buyers. In practice, this means that an agent must not give a price guide that is less than the asking price or the price the seller is willing to accept, less than the reserve price at auction, or less than the likely sale price of the property.

Under the Property Occupations Act 2014, a real estate agent is prohibited from giving any type of price guide to potential buyers when a property is going to auction in Queensland. As an agent cannot know how high the final bid will be, it is misleading to give a price guide. It also prevents agents from ‘heating up’ an auction by drawing in bidders who have no chance of being the final winning bidder.

This prohibition on auction price guides is a Queensland-specific feature that regularly catches interstate agents unfamiliar with the local framework. Agents relocating from Victoria or NSW — where price guides at auction are permitted and regulated differently — need to adjust their practice immediately. Quoting an estimated range verbally to a buyer who asks “what do you think it’ll sell for?” can constitute a breach.

Underquoting can be difficult to prove, as the disparity between the price guide and the sale price can be attributed to higher demand or vendor change of mind. That does not mean it goes uninvestigated. The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has the power to require agents to substantiate representations, and contemporary practice of retaining text message threads and email chains means that pre-listing price conversations are increasingly recoverable.

Misrepresentations About Property Characteristics

This is the broadest category and encompasses the most varied conduct. Overstating a water view, misrepresenting a property’s flood history, incorrectly describing council zoning, failing to disclose known structural issues, misquoting rental income, fabricating comparable sales — all of these can constitute misleading conduct under section 212 of the Property Occupations Act or the ACL, or both.

There is a very fine line between advertising the best attributes of a property and “downplaying” what might be unfavourable to a prospective buyer or tenant. In circumstances where it is unclear, agents should disclose any and all relevant information, and ensure that all important terms are clearly considered by the buyer or tenant without any misleading representations.

The courts have consistently held that a representation need not be explicitly false to be misleading. A technically accurate statement that creates a false overall impression can engage the prohibition. Describing a property as “minutes to the beach” when the drive is 22 minutes through traffic may be technically defensible, but an agent who knows that a buyer is specifically relocating to be close to the ocean should think carefully before leaving that impression uncorrected.

Concealment of Unfavourable Contract Terms and Material Facts

In circumstances where unfavourable terms in relation to the property are within the knowledge of the real estate agent, it is important that these terms are not overlooked, or “downplayed” to buyers or tenants in the course of advertising the property.

Agents who hold back disclosure of a termite management program, a pending body corporate levy, a significant easement, or a known neighbour dispute are not simply being discreet on behalf of their vendor client. They are potentially committing a breach of section 212’s prohibition on wilful concealment. The agent’s duty to avoid misleading conduct is not subordinate to the duty to the client — both obligations must be satisfied simultaneously.

Agents are required to disclose material facts that may impact the buyer’s decision, such as major structural issues or significant changes in property conditions. Failure to disclose key information, such as the loss of a major tenant in a commercial property, can be considered a serious breach of conduct standards.

Key Cases Queensland Agents Should Know

Nifsan Developments Pty Ltd v Buskey & Anor [2011] QSC 314

In Nifsan Developments Pty Ltd v Buskey & Anor [2011] QSC 314, the Supreme Court decided that due to misrepresentations made by an agent on behalf of a developer, the contract for sale of a penthouse apartment was void. Representations were made regarding views that were held to constitute misleading and deceptive conduct, and the deposits were successfully returned and the contract made void.

This case is instructive for several reasons. First, it was the agent’s representations about views — physical characteristics of the property — that triggered the finding, not a written statement in a contract. Oral and informal representations carry the same legal weight. Second, the remedy was contract avoidance. The buyer did not merely receive compensation for a portion of their loss — the entire transaction was unwound.

The decision established that a contract for sale of property will be considered void where the evidence makes it clear that representations have been made and that the buyer has relied on those representations. For Queensland agents, this underscores a key principle: reliance by the buyer is what transforms a careless statement into a legally actionable misrepresentation. If a buyer acted on something you told them, and what you told them was false or misleading, the consequences can extend to the entire transaction.

The Downplaying of Contract Terms: The Jonval Builders Principle

The REIQ’s own analysis of Jonval Builders Pty Ltd and Others v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2020] NSWCA 223, while arising in NSW, identified a principle that directly mirrors Queensland’s section 212 obligations. Agents and sellers alike may be held responsible for any unconscionable conduct which might entice a buyer or tenant into believing that a property and its terms are more favourable than they are.

In that case, respondents were ordered to pay compensation in amounts ranging from $224,380.63 to $387,883.62 per dwelling. The compensation orders were made up of the original purchase price of the dwellings, 85% of the cost of renovations and improvements undertaken by the buyers throughout their ownership, along with interest. These are not trivial outcomes. They represent the complete financial unwinding of property transactions, with the agent and developer bearing the cost.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the Commissioner. The respondents attempted to appeal to the High Court of Australia in February 2021, however, the High Court also dismissed the application with costs. The principle is settled.

Conduct Standards and Keeping Clients Informed

The duty to avoid misleading conduct extends to an agent’s own client — the vendor — not only to buyers. Real estate agents are obligated to keep their clients, particularly sellers, informed about all material developments related to the sale. This includes offers, buyer interest, and any potential issues that could affect the sale. Failure to do so can result in compensation claims against the agent.

In one documented case, an agent’s failure to keep a seller updated led to a court awarding the seller $25,000 in damages. The failure to relay an offer, or to accurately convey the terms of a buyer’s interest, can constitute misleading conduct toward the principal just as readily as misrepresentation to the buyer.

Vicarious Liability: When Your Team’s Conduct Becomes Your Problem

Principals and licensees in charge need to understand that section 226 of the Property Occupations Act allocates responsibility upward. Real estate agents are bound by specific conduct standards set out in the Property Occupations Act 2014, with their primary duty being to their clients (the sellers). However, agents also owe certain obligations to buyers and must avoid misleading or deceptive conduct. Failing to adhere to these standards can lead to disciplinary action, legal disputes, and damage to reputation.

A salesperson working under a licensee who makes a false representation about a property characteristic does not insulate the principal from responsibility. The principal can face disciplinary action under the Act for failing to supervise adequately, even if they had no direct knowledge of the representation. Supervision of marketing materials, verbal conduct at opens, and written communications — including social media — is not optional risk management. It is a legal obligation.

This is especially relevant in growing team structures, where high-performing salespersons operate with significant autonomy. The licensee in charge cannot delegate their compliance function informally. Documented systems, approval workflows for advertising content, and written protocols for price representation conversations are practical necessities, not bureaucratic overhead.

The Role of the Office of Fair Trading and QCAT

When a complaint is lodged, it is received by the Office of Fair Trading. While the OFT handles initial complaints, some matters may escalate to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) for a formal hearing and determination.

The OFT has investigative powers that include requiring agents to produce documents, substantiate representations, and cooperate with inquiries. It is necessary to have evidence in writing of the misleading pricing in order to successfully complain about an agent’s behaviour. This cuts both ways. Buyers who complain without a written record of the representation often find their claims difficult to sustain. Conversely, agents who make representations in email, text, or WhatsApp have created an evidentiary trail that will be produced in any subsequent investigation.

The OFT may refer large or complex claims against the Claim Fund to QCAT for determination. QCAT proceedings are formal hearings. The rules of evidence apply. Agents who appear in disciplinary proceedings without legal representation significantly disadvantage themselves, particularly where the conduct in question involves contested factual issues around what was or was not said.

What This Means for Queensland Agents

The exposure arising from misleading conduct in Queensland real estate is multi-directional — it can come from buyers, sellers, the OFT, QCAT, or the courts. It can arise from a written listing, a verbal comment at an open home, a WhatsApp message, or a social media post. Intent is not required. A false impression created carelessly carries the same legal consequence as one created deliberately.

Several practical steps reduce your exposure materially:

• Verify before you represent. Rental income figures, prior sale prices, rates, body corporate levies, zoning classifications — confirm these from source documents, not from what the vendor tells you. If you cannot verify a figure, state that it is unverified or exclude it from your marketing.
• Document your price discussions. When communicating price expectations to prospective buyers, put your position in writing. If a buyer asks what you think the property will sell for, ensure your response is accurate and contemporaneous.
• Disclose rather than omit. When in doubt about whether a fact is material, disclose it. The Act treats wilful concealment as equivalent to a false statement. The cost of disclosure is a momentary awkward conversation. The cost of non-disclosure can be a licence.
• Audit your advertising content. Every claim in a listing — views, aspect, proximity descriptors, income figures, zoning uses — should be capable of substantiation. AI-generated or copy-pasted listing descriptions are a particular risk area; review them before publication.
• Train your team and document that training. A principal who can demonstrate documented training in misleading conduct obligations is in a substantially stronger position in any QCAT disciplinary proceeding than one who cannot.

For principals specifically: the licensee in charge is the last line of defence. Building a team culture where salespeople are comfortable escalating uncertainty — “I’m not sure what the rental income is, can I verify before I tell the buyer?” — is not a constraint on productivity. It is the infrastructure that keeps licences intact.