What Happens If a Co-Agent Goes Direct to Your Buyer in Queensland?

You’ve done the work. You identified the buyer, qualified them, arranged the inspection, and handed the lead to the listing agent under a conjunction agreement. Then settlement arrives and the listing agent tells you the buyer went direct — they contacted the vendor’s agent independently and signed a contract without you in the loop. Your commission split: zero.

This scenario is not hypothetical. It happens, and when it does, the outcome depends almost entirely on what your conjunction agreement actually says — and what you can prove.

What a Conjunction Agreement Actually Protects

A conjunction typically involves one agent who is the exclusive listing agent and another who finds a willing buyer for the property. The co-agent — the one who supplies the buyer — enters the arrangement on the basis that their contribution to the sale will be recognised through a share of the commission. The two then split the commission according to a predetermined deal, which could be whatever percentage share they agreed to — usually something in the realm of an 80/20 split is the norm.

The conjunction agreement is a contract between two agencies. It governs the terms of that commercial relationship: what each party contributes, who introduced whom, what percentage each party receives, and critically, under what circumstances the entitlement to a commission split is triggered. The strength of that agreement — its precision, its scope, its clarity on the buyer identity question — is what determines your position if the other agent goes around you.

Usually, agency one is appointed by the sellers as the listing agent and lists the property for sale. Agency two supplies a buyer for the purchase. This arrangement is suitable where an agency other than the listing agency has access to a buyer that is suitable for the property. In this scenario, the commission payable is shared with a signed agreement set in place. What the arrangement does not automatically do is protect agency two if the buyer later bypasses them entirely.

The Critical Role of Buyer Identification in Your Agreement

The single most important factor in any conjunction dispute where the co-agent claims to have gone direct to the buyer is how precisely the conjunction agreement identifies — or fails to identify — the buyer.

The District Court of Queensland case of Equity 2 Pty Ltd v Best Price Real Estate Pty Ltd [2020] QDC 180 highlights that a lack of understanding when it comes to contract terms could cost real estate agents their agent commission. Best Price Real Estate involved a dispute arising from a conjunction agreement made between the two parties. The agreement was in relation to an agent’s entitlement to agent commission on the sale of a parcel of land.

The facts are instructive for any agent working under a conjunction. The issue in dispute was whether the respondent was entitled to a percentage of the applicant’s commission from the sale of land. Whilst there was a conjunction agreement in place, the property was sold to a different entity than that specified in the agreement. The respondent did not facilitate the acquisition of the alternative buyer.

The court’s reasoning was direct. The agreement was clear. The property was to be sold to a particular buyer by a certain date. As a result, when the property was sold to a different buyer, this was under a separate contract. Therefore, the respondent was not entitled to a percentage of the commission under the conjunction agreement.

There is, however, a crucial nuance on the other side of that finding. The Court determined that in the event there was ambiguity surrounding the prospective purchaser, the conjunction agreement may have been recognised before the Court. This would give rise to the respondent’s entitlement to commission.

Read that carefully. A tightly worded, buyer-specific agreement cut the co-agent out entirely. But had the agreement been drafted more broadly — leaving the buyer identity open rather than specifying a named entity — the outcome may have been different. This is not a reason to draft vague agreements. It is a reason to ensure your agreement captures the scenario you are actually trying to protect against.

When the Listing Agent Circumvents the Agreement

The cleaner version of this problem is when the listing agent doesn’t dispute the conjunction at all — they just quietly approach the buyer directly, encourage them to re-engage without the co-agent, and then collect the full commission on settlement. This is a breach of the conjunction agreement, full stop.

The question is whether you can prove it, and what remedies are available to you.

Disputes often arise when the seller challenges whether the agent was the effective cause of the sale. Even after the exclusive agency period has expired, an agent may still be entitled to commission if they were the effective cause of the sale. The “effective cause” test — established through contract law and confirmed in multiple Queensland cases — asks whether your actions were sufficiently connected to the eventual sale. Introduction alone may not be enough. The burden of proof lies with the agent seeking to recover the sales commission. The agent must convince the Court that it was their ongoing efforts that influenced the buyer’s decision to purchase the property.

Generally, standard REIQ contracts will include a term that entitles the agent to commission where an exclusive agency ends and the client sells the property to a buyer introduced by the agent. However, introduction alone might not satisfy the effective cause test.

This means that as the co-agent, you need to demonstrate more than that you first showed the buyer the property. You need evidence of sustained engagement: follow-up communications, price negotiations you participated in, finance discussions, contract preparation assistance, or other active contributions to the sale progressing. Timestamped records — emails, text messages, CRM notes, call logs — are your evidence base. Without them, your claim is substantially weaker.

The Implied Duty to Cooperate — and Its Limits

A natural response to being cut out of a conjunction deal is to argue that the listing agent had an implied duty to cooperate with the terms of the agreement, and that by going direct to the buyer they breached that duty. This argument has been tested, and it has limits.

In Best Price Real Estate, the respondent ran exactly this argument. The implied terms of the contract meant that the applicant was entitled to the commission, notwithstanding the fact that the property was sold to a different buyer; the applicant acted in breach of their implied duty to cooperate with the terms of the contract. In a lengthy hearing before the District Court, the judgment followed that it was not just and equitable to recognise implied terms in the contract. In doing so, it would “disproportionately benefit the respondent and burden the applicant”.

Further, the court denied the respondent’s argument that the applicant had a duty to cooperate. This was because performance of the conjunction agreement relied solely on the respondent fulfilling the promise. Therefore, mutual performance was not required, meaning that the duty to cooperate did not apply.

The takeaway is this: do not rely on implied terms to protect your position. Courts have been reluctant to read cooperative obligations into conjunction agreements that are not expressly stated. If you want protection against the listing agent facilitating a direct buyer approach, that protection must be written into the agreement itself — through an express non-circumvention clause, a buyer registration mechanism, and clear triggering language for when your commission entitlement crystallises.

What the Property Occupations Act 2014 Governs — and What It Doesn’t

The Property Occupations Act 2014 (Qld) governs agent appointments, commission entitlements, and the statutory requirements around Form 6 appointments. It does not directly regulate the inter-agency relationship between a listing agent and a co-agent in a conjunction. That relationship is governed by the conjunction agreement itself, as a private commercial contract.

If an agent has been validly appointed to sell a property in accordance with a Property Occupations Form 6 Appointment, the agent is ordinarily entitled to receive commission from their seller client upon completion of the contract of sale pursuant to the terms of the appointment. The listing agent’s entitlement to their commission from the vendor is a matter between the listing agent and the vendor. The co-agent’s entitlement to a share of that commission is a matter between the two agencies under their conjunction agreement.

Section 104 of the Act sets out the requirements which must be satisfied for an appointment to be valid and enforceable. In terms of commission payable, this section provides that the appointment must include a statement about the fees, charges and any commission payable for the service, and when they become payable. The appointment is ineffective from the time it is made if the appointment does not comply with section 104 of the Act.

This has a direct implication for conjunction arrangements: the co-agent’s share of commission must ultimately derive from a valid base commission pool. If the listing agent’s Form 6 appointment is defective — as happened in the QCAT case where an agent was stripped of $8,000 commission due to use of an outdated form — the commission itself may not be recoverable, leaving nothing to split. An agent introduced buyers for a property but failed to secure commission due to using an outdated Form 6. The agent claimed commission but was denied due to the use of an invalid form. QCAT ordered the agent to repay the commission, emphasising the importance of using valid, up-to-date forms.

It is important to note that agency two will not be appointed to act on behalf of the buyer, and therefore must not provide property services to the buyer. Agency two may assist with facilitating the sale but should not make representations that they act for the buyer or have a fiduciary relationship with that buyer. Co-agents who overreach their role and begin providing advice or services to the buyer risk both their professional obligations under the Act and the coherence of their conjunction arrangement.

Recovering Your Commission — The Dispute Pathway

If a co-agent goes direct to your buyer and the conjunction split is refused, your avenues for recovery depend on the amount in dispute and the strength of your documentation.

If the matter cannot be resolved at an early stage, agents may commence a minor debt claim to recover commission through the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) (depending on the value of the commission sought). QCAT can hear minor debt claims up to $25,000.

The matter will likely progress to a mediation before being listed for a hearing, if the matter is unable to be resolved. Alternatively, agents may seek to start proceedings for breach of contract in the Magistrates Court (for claims over $25,000 and up to $150,000) by filing and serving a claim and statement of claim. For amounts above $150,000 — not uncommon on prestige or commercial conjunction sales — the matter proceeds to the District Court, as in Best Price Real Estate.

Before pursuing litigation, consider the evidence in your favour:

• Written conjunction agreement with clear buyer identification language or open buyer provisions
• Records showing you were the first to introduce the buyer to the property
• Documented communications with the buyer showing your ongoing role in the transaction
• Evidence that the listing agent had knowledge of your buyer relationship before bypassing you
• Any communications from the listing agent acknowledging the conjunction arrangement

The absence of a written conjunction agreement puts you in a very difficult position. A verbal arrangement may be legally enforceable in theory, but proving its terms in a contested hearing — against a well-resourced opposing agency with a signed Form 6 directing commission to themselves — is a hard path. Courts will not readily imply favourable terms.

The Role of Agreement Drafting in Preventing This Problem

The most effective response to the risk of a co-agent going direct to your buyer is a conjunction agreement that closes the gaps before the deal begins.

A well-drafted conjunction agreement for Queensland conditions should expressly address: the identity of the introduced buyer (or define “buyer introduction” broadly enough to catch related entities and associated purchasers); the triggering event for the commission split (exchange of contracts, not settlement, to prevent late-stage circumvention); a non-circumvention clause preventing the listing agent from dealing directly with the introduced buyer outside the arrangement; the duration of the buyer registration (often 90 to 180 days after the agreement concludes); and a dispute resolution mechanism specifying mediation before litigation.

Vague causation — without a defined “effective cause” test and an intro log process — means both sides may claim the same buyer. Build clear rules into the agreement. Introducing a buyer registration process, where the co-agent formally notifies the listing agent in writing of each buyer’s identity and the date of introduction, creates a timestamped record that is very difficult to dispute later.

If the listing authority doesn’t allow conjunctions and the vendor objects later, commission can be at risk. Get consent first. This is an often-overlooked prerequisite. The vendor’s Form 6 appointment with the listing agent needs to either expressly permit conjunction arrangements or at least not prohibit them. A co-agent relying on a conjunction that the vendor has never consented to is operating on uncertain ground.

What This Means for Queensland Agents

If a co-agent goes direct to your buyer in Queensland, your ability to recover commission turns on four things: whether you have a written conjunction agreement, how precisely it captures your buyer introduction, whether you can prove your effective role in the sale, and whether the agreement includes any protection against circumvention.

The case law is clear that courts will not insert implied protections that the parties did not include. Equity 2 Pty Ltd v Best Price Real Estate Pty Ltd [2020] QDC 180 is the definitive Queensland authority: a conjunction agreement tied to a specific buyer, where that buyer does not ultimately purchase, entitles the co-agent to nothing — regardless of how much work they did. Ambiguity may help, but it is not a substitute for proper drafting.

Practically, every conjunction arrangement you enter should be documented before any buyer contact is shared. The agreement should name or broadly define the buyer category, specify the commission percentage (industry practice in Queensland typically runs around an 80/20 split in favour of the listing agent, though terms are negotiable), include an express non-circumvention clause, and establish a buyer registration log.

No matter what kind of agreement is entered into — conjunction, referral, or otherwise — sales agents must ensure it continues to meet its disclosure obligations in accordance with the Property Occupations Act. The statutory framework sets the floor. A comprehensive, professionally drafted conjunction agreement sets the ceiling. Everything in between is a risk you are choosing to carry.

If the dispute has already arisen, act quickly. Gather your evidence of buyer introduction and your role in the transaction, write to the other agency formally asserting your claim, and seek legal advice before the matter progresses to a position where your negotiating leverage diminishes. A well-documented claim, presented early and clearly, often resolves before reaching QCAT or the courts.