When Two Queensland Agents Both Claim Commission on the Same Sale

A contract goes unconditional. Both agents reach for the phone to call the vendor about their commission. One introduced the buyer six weeks ago. The other has held an exclusive listing for the past month. The vendor, understandably, wants to pay once. Welcome to one of the most reliably contested scenarios in Queensland real estate — and one where the legal outcome is rarely as obvious as either agent assumes.

Real estate commission disputes in Queensland can arise from a variety of situations, including competing claims by multiple agents. They are not uncommon, particularly when multiple agents are involved in a sale or when sellers challenge the validity of commission claims. The structure of the agency appointment, the type of listing, the sequence of events, and the precise wording of the Form 6 each play a role in determining who gets paid. Getting the analysis right — preferably before the dispute escalates — is essential for any Queensland agent working in a competitive market.

The Legal Foundation: The Property Occupations Act 2014 and Commission Entitlement

Every commission claim in Queensland ultimately traces back to the Property Occupations Act 2014 (Qld) (the POA). An agent can only recover commission if they have been properly appointed in accordance with the legal requirements imposed by the Property Occupations Act 2014 (Qld). That appointment is recorded in the Form 6, which is the foundation of the entire commission relationship.

Real estate commissions in Queensland are not capped by law — they are negotiable and must be recorded in a signed Form 6 before the agent starts work. The Form 6 should clearly state the commission structure, confirm whether GST is included or excluded, and set a precise trigger for when commission is earned.

The type of appointment selected on the Form 6 determines almost everything about how a competing claim plays out. There are three appointment types: exclusive agency, sole agency, and open listing. Each creates different rights, and the distinction matters enormously when two agents are in the room.

Exclusive Agency

Exclusive agency means the real estate agent has the right to claim the agreed commission for the sale of the property, whether or not they are the effective cause of the sale. Under an exclusive agency agreement, the agent can claim commission even if the seller sells the property themselves, or it is sold through another agent.

This is the most protective appointment type for the listing agent. If a second agent introduces and ultimately sells to the buyer while an exclusive agency is still current and valid, the listing agent’s commission entitlement under the exclusive appointment generally survives. An exclusive appointment is a common arrangement in Queensland where a seller appoints a single agent to handle the sale. Under this arrangement, the seller is generally liable to pay commission to the agent if a sale occurs during the exclusive agency period, even if the sale is made by the seller or another party. The seller may therefore face paying double commission — one to each agent — in that scenario.

For residential property, exclusive or sole agency appointments are capped at a statutory maximum of 90 days and must be renewed in writing if you wish to continue. This cap is significant. Once the 90-day exclusive period expires without renewal, the appointment reverts to an open listing unless the Form 6 specifies otherwise — and the entire dynamics of a competing commission claim shift.

Sole Agency

If the selling agent is appointed under a sole agency, the agent is entitled to an agreed commission or other reward in accordance with the terms of the agreement only in certain cases. Sole agency is similar to exclusive agency but with one key distinction: in a sole agency, the agent cannot claim commission if it is sold by the owner. However, if another agent makes the sale, the sole agent may still have a claim.

Under a sole agency, you can appoint another real estate agent during the period of sale — however if the property is sold while more than one agreement is in place, you may be liable for double commission and/or damages for breach of contract arising under the existing agent’s appointment. Sellers who engage a second agent without terminating an existing sole or exclusive appointment are often surprised to find themselves exposed to two simultaneous commission obligations.

Open Listing

More than one agent can be engaged through an open listing agreement, but only the agent who is the effective cause of sale can claim commission for the sale. This is the arrangement most likely to generate a genuine competing commission claim between two unrelated agencies, and it is the context in which the effective cause of sale test does most of its legal work.

The Effective Cause of Sale Test: What It Actually Means

The term ‘effective cause of sale’ is not defined in the POA. It is a common law concept, developed through decades of case law, and its application to any given set of facts is never entirely predictable.

In Queensland real estate, determining whether an agent is entitled to commission for a sale often revolves around the concept of effective cause. Numerous court decisions have helped clarify what constitutes an effective cause, especially when multiple agents are involved in the sale of a property.

The leading judicial statement on the concept comes from the High Court decision of LJ Hooker Ltd v Adams Estates Pty Ltd, where the court set out the core inquiry clearly. As Jacobs J said: “Effective cause” means more than simply “cause”. The inquiry is whether the actions of the agent really brought about the relation of buyer and seller, and it is seldom conclusive that there were other events which could each be described as a cause of the ensuing sale. The factual inquiry is whether a sale is really brought about by the act of the agent.

Introduction alone will not get you there. In Queensland, simply introducing a buyer to a property is not enough to automatically entitle an agent to commission. The concept of effective cause requires that the agent’s actions must have directly contributed to the sale. This means the agent must play a significant role in facilitating the sale, rather than just showing the property or introducing a potential buyer.

What courts examine in practice is a totality of the agent’s contribution. Whether either or both agents involved with a potential sale was an effective cause of sale cannot be determined by simply comparing the amount of work done by each agent. Rather, the work done by each agent must be considered in the process of evaluating all of the circumstances which may have had some causal relationship with the sale.

Specifically, when assessing competing claims, courts consider:

• Timing of introduction: Did the agent introduce the buyer during an active agency period or after it ended?
• Ongoing engagement: Was the agent actively involved in keeping the buyer interested and progressing negotiations, or did another agent take over the relationship entirely?
• Price and terms: If the eventual sale occurs on materially the same terms as those negotiated during the first agent’s involvement, that agent’s claim is stronger.
• The break in the chain: Did something occur — like a significant lapse of time, different terms, or a complete renegotiation — that severed the causal link between the first agent’s introduction and the final sale?

A common situation occurs when a property is sold to a buyer after the expiration of an exclusive agency period. If the terms and price are the same, the original agent who introduced the buyer may still have a valid claim for commission, even if another agent completes the sale.

Can Two Agents Both Be the Effective Cause?

This is the question that surprises many agents. The short answer is yes — two agents can simultaneously satisfy the effective cause test, and in that case the seller may be exposed to paying commission twice.

In some instances, courts have ruled that two different agents may be considered effective causes of a sale — one for introducing the buyer and the other for negotiating or closing the deal.

Each case will be decided on its unique facts and circumstances. If the agent responsible for the eventual sale of the property did not play a role that is more significant than the first agent, both agents may be entitled to sales commission — for example, where the terms negotiated by both agents were similar and did not substantially differ.

This is precisely the scenario the 2024 Queensland District Court decision of Podium Project Marketing Pty Ltd v B Global (Aust) Pty Ltd [2024] QDC 219 examined in the context of open listings and sub-agents. In deciding whether the agent was the effective cause of sale, the Court referred to authorities which demonstrated that an agent may be the effective cause of sale whether it is the sole cause of the sale or an effective cause of sale, among other causes. The court ultimately found that an agent may be regarded as the effective cause of sale in circumstances where it has not sourced or had any direct contact with the buyer, but its actions have constituted a causal link between the seller and buyer.

The burden of proving effective cause falls on the agent seeking the commission. 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.

The Conjunction Agreement: When Two Agents Cooperate Deliberately

Not every two-agent situation involves a dispute. A conjunction sale is one where the listing agent and a second agent cooperate, with the listing agent holding the vendor authority and the second agent sourcing the buyer. Also known as agents in association, a conjunction typically involves one agent who is the exclusive listing agent and another who finds a willing buyer for the property. The two then split the commission according to a predetermined deal — usually something in the realm of an 80/20 split.

A conjunction agreement is a written contract between two (or more) agents or businesses who agree to work together on a specific listing or opportunity and share the commission or fee if it settles. Without a written conjunction agreement in place, disputes about the split — or even whether any split was agreed — become difficult to resolve.

The 2020 Queensland District Court decision in Equity 2 Pty Ltd v Best Price Real Estate Pty Ltd [2020] QDC 180 illustrates exactly how badly this can go. The case highlights that a lack of understanding when it comes to contract terms could cost real estate agents their commission. Best Price Real Estate involved a dispute arising from a conjunction agreement. The agreement was in relation to an agent’s entitlement to commission on the sale of a parcel of land. The court held that where a buyer who was not specified in the terms of the contract purchases the land, the entitlement to commission will not be recognised.

The decision shows the reluctance of courts to read outside the terms of an agreement. It is important when entering a contract to understand the nature of the terms. Anything which is not expressly stipulated will not be recognised solely on the grounds of good faith.

The practical lesson is unambiguous: if two agents are working together on a sale, get the split in writing before either party takes meaningful steps toward bringing that specific buyer to the table. A verbal arrangement, however clear it seems at the time, is difficult to enforce.

Changing Agents Mid-Campaign: The Double Commission Trap

One of the most common ways vendors end up owing commission to two agents simultaneously is switching agents partway through a sales campaign without properly extinguishing the first appointment.

Many assume that the biggest risk of an invalid or incorrectly completed agency agreement is that the real estate agent could lose their commission. However, there can also be serious consequences for sellers, including costly legal disputes and in some cases a court order to pay double commission. One significant risk is that there may be an obligation to pay an agent a full commission even when it may seem unreasonable. For example, under the terms of the agreement, an agent may be entitled to a commission regardless of who sells the property. This means that if a seller appoints a new agent and the new agent successfully sells the property, the first agent may still be owed commission.

The risk does not necessarily end when the first agent’s exclusive period expires. 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. This occurs when the agent introduces a buyer who eventually purchases the property after the agency period ends.

For Queensland agents picking up a listing from another agent, this is a critical due diligence step. If you are considering moving to a new real estate agent after a first appointment has expired, it is important to be aware that the first agent may still be entitled to be paid a commission as well as the new agent. This can occur in situations where the first agent has introduced a buyer to your property, in which case the first agent may be the ‘effective cause of the sale’. Despite the second agent not introducing the buyer, if that agent is appointed under an exclusive arrangement, it is entitled to commission regardless.

Where sellers are considering changing agents part way through their sales campaign, it is advisable to obtain a list of potential buyers from the first agent. The Form 6 with the new agent should state that, despite any term of their Form 6, if the property is sold to one of the buyers on the list from the first agent, commission will not be payable. This is not a standard practice that most vendors think to implement, but a well-advised incoming agent should raise it proactively — it protects the vendor from double commission exposure, and it protects the new agent from being drawn into a dispute they had no part in creating.

The Form 6’s Role in Preventing and Causing Disputes

These disputes often arise due to the structure of commission agreements, the effectiveness of agents in securing sales, and compliance with legal requirements, such as the proper use of Form 6.

A valid Form 6 is a prerequisite for any commission claim. An agent may be prevented from recovering commission if there is an invalidity in the Form 6 appointment. This can happen if the form was improperly completed or if the agent was not appropriately appointed, leading to disputes over the legitimacy of the agent’s commission claim.

The 2023 Queensland Court of Appeal case of Trappando Pty Ltd v Sunshine Group Australia Pty Ltd (2023) reinforced this point. In the case, the client terminated the contract and forfeited the deposit, and the agent sought to recover their commission. The Form 6 contained some discrepancies. The court ultimately found in favour of the agent, but not without the agent paying significant legal costs which could have been avoided. The case shows the importance of preparing your Form 6 correctly.

Failure to comply with any of the Form 6 requirements may result in your appointment as agent being ineffective. If the Form 6 is being amended to include any special conditions or clauses, it is recommended that you obtain legal advice on these conditions, as certain phrases or single words used incorrectly can be detrimental.

For agents managing competing commission claims, the Form 6 is not just a statutory formality — it is evidence. A court examining who was the effective cause of sale will scrutinise the dates, the appointment type, the commission terms, and the scope of authority granted in each Form 6 in circulation. Gaps, inconsistencies, or informal amendments undermine the agent’s position regardless of the quality of their actual work on the transaction.

Double commission disputes often turn on whether an exclusive appointment was still in force and who was the effective cause of sale. Agents should avoid overlapping exclusive appointments, and if a change of agents occurs, end the existing appointment in writing and start the new one after the exclusive period ends.

Resolving the Dispute: From Negotiation to QCAT to Court

When two agents are genuinely in dispute over commission on the same Queensland sale, the resolution pathway depends on the amounts involved and the willingness of the parties to engage.

The first and most practical step is direct negotiation between the agencies — principal to principal. Many commission disputes are resolved at this level. The agent with the weaker position — whether because their Form 6 has technical problems, their involvement was genuinely minimal, or they lack evidence of ongoing buyer engagement — often has commercial reasons to settle rather than litigate.

The Property Occupations Act 2014 provides the legal framework for real estate transactions and agent obligations. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) offers a process for commission disputes and the tribunal has jurisdiction over such matters. For commission disputes arising between agents and vendors up to $25,000, QCAT is the more accessible and cost-efficient forum than the District Court. QCAT is an independent, accessible tribunal that efficiently resolves disputes on a range of matters.

For larger commission amounts — which in a strong Queensland market can quickly exceed QCAT’s jurisdiction — the matter escalates to the Queensland District Court or Supreme Court, depending on the sum involved. The 2024 Podium Project Marketing decision was heard in the District Court with commissions of $40,000 per lot at issue across 60 lots; such matters can involve very significant sums in litigation costs.

The burden of proof falls on the agent making the claim. Documentary evidence matters enormously: correspondence logs showing buyer engagement, records of inspections and negotiation, dated introduction emails, and agency appointment records all become critical exhibits. Agents who maintain thorough CRM records are in a materially stronger position than those who rely on memory and conversation.

What This Means for Queensland Agents

Know your appointment type and its current status. Whether a listing is exclusive, sole, or open at any given moment determines the entire framework of a commission dispute. An exclusive period that has expired unnoticed shifts your entitlement from automatic to merit-based overnight.

Document buyer introductions and ongoing engagement immediately. An email to the buyer confirming the property details, followed by a record of every subsequent inspection, call, or correspondence, builds the evidentiary base that the effective cause test requires. If the dispute goes to QCAT or court, the burden of proof lies with the agent seeking to recover the sales commission. That burden must be met with paper, not recollection.

Get conjunction arrangements in writing before you act on them. 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. A handshake conjunction is a liability. A written conjunction agreement specifying the property, the split percentage, and the payment trigger is enforceable.

Advise incoming vendors about first-agent risk. When accepting a listing from a vendor who has recently discharged another agent, identify any buyers that agent introduced. Document the exclusion of those buyers in your Form 6 from the outset. This protects your vendor from double-commission exposure and removes you from the blast radius of a dispute you didn’t create.

The Form 6 is your strongest defence and your biggest risk. Clear documentation, practical negotiation, and a watertight Form 6 are the best tools to prevent disputes and keep your sale moving smoothly. Errors in appointment documentation do not just risk your own commission — in a two-agent dispute, they can hand the other party the outcome without them having to argue the substantive merits at all.

Commission disputes between two Queensland agents are almost always avoidable in hindsight. They arise from situations that could have been managed at the appointment stage: overlapping exclusive periods, informal conjunction arrangements, vendors who changed agents without closing out the first agreement, and agents who stopped documenting their engagement with buyers the moment the property moved to open listing. Solid practice at the start is the cheapest dispute resolution there is.