Understanding Requisitions on Title in an Australian Capital Territory Property Contract
Plain English Definition
"Requisitions on Title" means a formal series of written questions and demands sent by a buyer's solicitor to the seller's solicitor after the contract is signed but before settlement. In an ACT Contract, these questions are designed to flush out "off-title" information, such as hidden disputes, unregistered easements, or boundary issues that a standard title search might not reveal.
The Danger Zone: Buyer's Risk
- Strict Time Limits: Under the standard ACT Contract, you generally only have 21 days from the date of the contract to serve your requisitions; failing to meet this deadline can result in the loss of your right to object to significant title defects.
- Unregistered Encumbrances: If you do not receive clear answers regarding unregistered rights of way or drainage easements, you may find yourself legally obligated to allow third parties or government authorities access to your land without compensation.
- Inherited Liabilities: A buyer's risk includes becoming liable for the seller’s outstanding land tax or rates if the requisitions do not properly identify these debts before the final settlement adjustment.
- Illegal Structures: If the seller provides misleading answers about unapproved renovations or "DIY" extensions and you accept them, you may be forced to pay for expensive council-ordered rectifications or demolitions after you move in.
- Boundary Encroachments: Without specific requisitions regarding the location of fences and buildings, you might discover too late that a neighbour’s garage is built on your land, leading to a costly and stressful legal dispute in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
- Waiver of Rights: Accepting a vague or "to the best of the seller's knowledge" response without further investigation can be legally interpreted as you waiving your right to claim compensation for a breach of warranty.
Real-Life Australian Capital Territory Scenario
Wei and Lin, investors from Sydney purchasing a townhouse in Belconnen, received the standard responses to their Requisitions on Title. Their solicitor noted a vague answer regarding a shared driveway arrangement that wasn't clearly marked on the deposited plan. They decided not to press for a more detailed response to avoid delaying the settlement of their ACT Contract. Six months later, a neighbour blocked their access, claiming a historical private agreement that Wei and Lin were now legally bound by because they had failed to resolve the requisition. They were forced to pay $12,000 in legal fees to negotiate a new access agreement. The lesson is that a requisition is only as good as the answer you insist on receiving; never accept an ambiguous response on a critical issue.