The seller’s agent said the land “will be subdivided into 15 lots”. Twenty days later, the parties signed a $2,200,000 contract. Three short special conditions made the contract conditional on the buyer being satisfied about the conditions of the development approval. Those words ultimately controlled a $220,000 deposit.

In Brades Property Agnes Water Pty Ltd v Skyrock Sun Pty Ltd [2026] QCA 141, delivered on 28 July 2026, the Queensland Court of Appeal upheld the buyer’s reliance on the first of those conditions. Kelly J gave the reasons, with Mullins P and Boddice JA agreeing. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The result is best understood as a decision about the contractual trigger. The approval did not have to fail an objective test devised after the event. The question was whether the buyer was satisfied that its conditions were consistent with the seller’s representation. That state of satisfaction had to be honest and reasonable, but it was still the buyer’s state of satisfaction. I think the Court was right to keep that distinction at the centre of the appeal.

The clause made satisfaction the trigger

The contract, dated 5 July 2022, concerned land within the Gladstone Regional Council area. A development application for reconfiguring one lot into 15 lots was pending. The contract referred to that application by number and said it was conditional upon the buyer being satisfied that the approval conditions were consistent with the seller’s representations, were conditions typically imposed on similar developments, and did not include any provision reducing the number of lots below 15. The Court called those limbs A(1), A(2) and A(3).

The representation for A(1) came from the real estate agent’s email of 15 June 2022. It said the land “will be subdivided into 15 lots” and included a calculation based on selling those 15 developed lots. The parties agreed that this was the representation identified by the clause. The primary judge treated it as a positive assertion of a future event that left no room for uncertainty about the proposed subdivision’s success. No party challenged that characterisation on appeal.

That pre-contract email did more than supply background colour. The contract itself referred to the seller’s representations, so the email helped identify the content against which satisfaction was to be assessed. For practitioners, that is the first sharp point: a brief special condition can pull an agent’s earlier words directly into the contractual inquiry.

The protection was real, but not absolute

The Court construed special condition A as a condition precedent to the buyer’s duty to perform, not to the formation of the contract. There was a binding contract with enforceable rights, but the buyer’s obligation to perform depended on fulfilment of special condition A. The condition protected the buyer because the buyer had to reach the stipulated state of satisfaction before the contract became unconditional.

Protection did not mean caprice. The Court held that the buyer’s satisfaction had to be both honest and reasonable. The matters identified by the clause were discrete matters found in the approval conditions and facts known to the parties. They were not the buyer’s personal preferences. Nor did the clause give the buyer “absolute discretion”. The Court contrasted that language with the clause in Eastbound Estate Pty Ltd v DC Consolidated Investments Pty Ltd [2024] VSC 40, which it distinguished.

Reasonableness also did not allow the Court simply to replace the buyer’s view with its own. The appellants bore the onus of establishing that a reasonable person ought to have been satisfied. Different reasonable people can reach different views. The attack succeeds only if the buyer’s view is shown to have been unreasonable on the material then available. That is a meaningful constraint, but it preserves the bargain the parties actually made.

The approval described a reconfiguration of one lot into 15 lots, but it did not include an approved or stamped plan of subdivision. One approval condition required revised subdivision plans to be submitted to the Council for approval. Another dealt with the capacity of a rubble pit and said the detention strategy might need amendment. When the seller’s town planner asked for a stamped plan, the Council replied that compliance might change the proposed layout and affect the number and design of lots. The buyer received that reply before terminating.

The buyer’s directors gave evidence about their actual state of satisfaction. Town planning experts addressed the practical effect of the approval. The evidence included that reconfiguration approval was a first, conceptual stage and that later operational works commonly brought “tweaks and changes”, with a potential change to lot number or size. The primary judge accepted that the buyer was honestly and reasonably not satisfied under A(1).

The seller side tried to shift the appeal to the legal effect of the deemed approval under Planning Act 2016 (Qld) s 64. The Court declined that move. Whether the conditions were lawful, and how far they could alter the approved development, had not been pleaded or litigated at trial. More fundamentally, that argument did not answer A(1). The contractual inquiry concerned the practical uncertainty created by the approval conditions when measured against an unqualified representation that the land would be subdivided into 15 lots.

That distinction carries the reasoning. The Court did not decide that the approval legally authorised fewer than 15 lots. It held that the absence of an approved plan, the requirement for revised plans and the Council’s expressed concern were relevant objective circumstances when assessing the buyer’s honest and reasonable dissatisfaction.

The other limbs expose the drafting difference

A(3) did not produce the same result. It asked whether the approval included a provision reducing the lot count below 15. No condition said that. A condition that might later affect the lot count was not a provision that positively reduced it. The primary judge rejected reliance on A(3), and the Court rejected the buyer’s notice of contention on that point.

A(2) failed for an evidentiary reason. It concerned whether the approval conditions were typical for similar developments. The primary judge found the buyer’s director was not in a position to decide that question. The termination letter had not relied on A(2), which further weakened the later claim of dissatisfaction. The Court found no substance in that part of the notice of contention.

The contrast is useful. A(1) asked whether the conditions were consistent with a representation and therefore allowed their practical implications and surrounding circumstances to be considered. A(3) asked whether the text contained a particular kind of provision. Similar-looking limbs performed different work. Draft them, and later read them, one by one.

The holding is sound, but contract-specific

I read the decision as strong authority for giving a satisfaction clause real work, not as a general licence for a buyer to terminate whenever an approval leaves something unresolved. The Court reached its conclusion by construing this language in this commercial setting. It also treated honesty and reasonableness as part of the stipulated satisfaction. The subjective trigger mattered, but objective material disciplined it.

The reasoning depends heavily on an unchallenged step below: the agent’s statement was treated as a positive assertion leaving no room for uncertainty. Had the communication described a proposed 15-lot scheme, or had the clause conferred an express absolute discretion, the construction exercise would have been different. The decision also leaves open the planning law issue raised too late on appeal. It does not determine what conditions may lawfully attach to a deemed approval under s 64.

There is a fair counter-argument that an approval expressly described as one lot into 15 should have satisfied a commercial buyer. The answer lies in the clause’s wording and the evidence. A(1) was not confined to the label on the decision notice, and the Council itself said compliance could affect lot number and design. Treating the approval heading as conclusive would have stripped “the Buyer being satisfied” of much of its negotiated function.

Draft the satisfaction process, not just the topic

For a conditional acquisition, identify who must be satisfied, about exactly what, by when, and according to which standard. If an absolute discretion is intended, say so and confront the commercial consequence. If an objective documentary test is intended, specify the document or approval feature that passes it. Those choices belong in the contract, not in affidavits prepared after termination.

Pre-contract communications also need to match the special condition. In commercial conveyancing, an agent’s confident prediction may become the benchmark if the drafting refers to the seller’s representations. The same discipline matters for off-the-plan purchases, where an approved concept and the final deliverable may be separated by later design and infrastructure work.

When dissatisfaction arises, record the material considered and connect it to the precise limb relied upon. The termination letter in this case relied on A(1) and A(3), not A(2). The evidence supported honest and reasonable dissatisfaction under A(1), but not the later attempt to invoke every limb. In a developing property dispute, that contemporaneous discipline can decide whether a satisfaction clause protects the deposit or merely starts another contest.

Published 5 August 2026.

If you would like to discuss your matter, you can book a consultation or call (07) 5554 6116.