When purchasing property in Queensland, paying the deposit is one of the first obligations a buyer must satisfy after signing a contract.
While electronic bank transfers have made payments more convenient, delays in processing funds can create significant legal consequences.
A buyer may believe that a deposit has been paid because the transfer was initiated before the deadline. However, whether payment has legally occurred depends on the terms of the contract.
The Queensland Court of Appeal decision in Novadeck Pty Ltd v CK & PT Property Holdings Pty Ltd [2025] QCA 170 highlights the importance of complying with deposit deadlines and understanding when an electronic payment is considered received.
Background to the Dispute
In August 2021, CK & PT Property Holdings Pty Ltd entered into an off-the-plan contract with Novadeck Pty Ltd to purchase a townhouse at Mango Hill, Queensland, for $499,900.
The contract required an initial deposit of $1,000, with a further deposit of $48,990 payable upon satisfaction of the finance condition.
On 16 October 2024, the buyer received satisfactory finance approval.
At approximately 10:32am that morning, the buyer instructed its bank to electronically transfer the balance deposit of $48,990 to the seller’s solicitor’s trust account.
Later that morning, the buyer’s conveyancer notified the seller’s solicitor that finance had been approved and that payment of the balance deposit had been arranged.
However, although the transfer had been initiated during the morning, the funds were not received into the deposit holder’s trust account until approximately 9:38pm that evening.
Under the contract, any act required to be completed on a particular day had to be performed before 5:00pm.
At approximately 6:33pm, the seller’s solicitor issued a notice terminating the contract on the basis that the deposit had not been paid by the required deadline.
The buyer disputed the termination, arguing that it had complied with its payment obligations by instructing its bank to transfer the funds on time.
What Did the Courts Decide?
The matter was initially considered by the District Court of Queensland in CK & PT Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Novadeck Pty Ltd [2025] QDC 50.
The District Court ruled in favour of the buyer, finding that payment by electronic funds transfer could be treated as having occurred when the buyer instructed its bank to make the payment.
The Court also considered that a contractual term could be implied to accommodate delays in electronic banking transactions.
However, the seller appealed that decision.
On 12 September 2025, the Queensland Court of Appeal overturned the District Court’s decision by a majority of two to one.
The majority found that the contractual obligation to pay the deposit required the deposit holder to receive the funds by the specified deadline.
Merely instructing a bank to transfer the funds was not sufficient.
The Court unanimously rejected the implication of a contractual term protecting the buyer against the bank’s processing delay.
As the deposit had not been received by 5:00pm, the buyer had breached an essential term of the contract.
The Court of Appeal consequently set aside the orders for specific performance and dismissed the buyer’s application.
It should be noted that one member of the Court dissented, considering that the buyer had done all within its control by instructing a same-day electronic transfer. The majority view, however, represents the binding position.
What Has Changed Under the REIQ Contracts?
The decision is particularly important because the contract in Novadeck did not contain the electronic deposit payment protections subsequently introduced into recent editions of the standard REIQ contracts.
Those editions include provisions recognising that electronic transfers may take time to reach the deposit holder.
The current REIQ Contract for the Sale and Purchase of Residential Real Estate retains these protections under clauses 2.1(3) and 2.1(4).
Under clause 2.1(3), an electronic deposit payment may be treated as received on the day the buyer effects the transaction, even if the funds arrive later because of circumstances beyond the buyer’s control.
However, the buyer must provide written evidence of the transaction to the deposit holder and must not take any action to defer the payment.
Clause 2.1(4) provides a further mechanism where the buyer has complied with those requirements but the funds have not arrived by the due date.
In those circumstances, the seller may issue a notice confirming that payment has not been received.
If the funds are still not received by 5:00pm two business days after that notice, the electronic payment protection ceases to apply and the buyer will be in default.
Importantly, this is not an automatic grace period for every late deposit.
A buyer who fails to initiate the transfer on time or otherwise satisfy the contractual requirements may not have the benefit of these protections.
What If the Deposit Is Due on a Weekend or Public Holiday?
Another important consideration arises under the REIQ contracts introduced on 1 August 2025.
Under clause 11.6(2), a deposit payment due on a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday does not automatically move to the next business day.
This differs from the treatment of settlement dates and certain other contractual deadlines.
For example, if a contract is signed on a Saturday and requires the initial deposit to be paid that day, the buyer must comply with that deadline.
A buyer should not assume that payment can be postponed until Monday simply because banks may not ordinarily process transfers over the weekend.
What Does This Mean for Buyers and Sellers?
The decision in Novadeck reinforces the importance of understanding precisely when a deposit is payable and what constitutes payment under the contract.
For buyers, relying solely on a bank’s confirmation that a transfer has been initiated may be insufficient, particularly where the contract does not contain the standard REIQ electronic payment provisions.
Deposit arrangements should be reviewed before signing, especially where payment depends on finance approval or another contractual event.
Where a deposit is expressed to be payable “upon” satisfaction of a condition, the majority in Novadeck treated the deposit as due at the time the condition was satisfied, with time being of the essence. Buyers should therefore ensure that funds are available and transfers arranged as soon as a condition is satisfied, rather than assuming the payment deadline extends to the following day.
For sellers, a late deposit does not necessarily provide an immediate right to terminate.
The applicable contractual provisions must be considered carefully, including whether the buyer has complied with any electronic payment protections.
This is particularly important for off-the-plan contracts, which are frequently prepared using developer-specific terms rather than the standard REIQ contract.
How Vojdani Lawyers Can Assist
Vojdani Lawyers advises buyers and sellers on residential and commercial property transactions throughout Queensland.
Our property lawyers assist with reviewing contracts and negotiating deposit arrangements to ensure that clients understand their contractual obligations and the consequences of non-compliance.
The decision in Novadeck demonstrates that even a relatively short banking delay can have significant consequences where strict payment obligations apply.
Obtaining legal advice before signing a property contract can help identify these risks and ensure that appropriate protections are in place.
Contact Vojdani Lawyers for advice on your next property transaction.