When Stephen Evans missed the deposit deadline on a $985,000 Shailer Park home by a single day, he had a choice. He could have tried to negotiate the return of his $98,500. Instead, he went to the Queensland Supreme Court and tried to force the seller to complete the sale. It was a gamble that cost him everything.
The facts of Evans v Jan [2025] QSC 31 are straightforward enough. Evans signed the contract on 23 January 2024. The deposit of $98,500, 10 per cent of the purchase price, was due that same day. But his bank imposed a $50,000 daily transfer limit, and Evans did not have time to visit a branch to increase it. He texted the real estate agent, who appeared to agree he could split the payment across two days.
He transferred $45,000 on 24 January and the remaining $53,500 on 25 January. The money arrived, but two days late. On 29 January, the seller Yea Lan Jan's solicitors terminated the contract and declared the deposit forfeited.
The decision that made everything worse
Here is where Evans' story takes its costly turn. The seller had terminated the contract and kept the deposit. Evans could have engaged a solicitor to negotiate a refund, arguing the agent's text messages created an expectation the delayed payment was acceptable. Sellers in this position sometimes agree to return deposits rather than face drawn-out litigation.
Evans chose a different path. He took the matter to the Supreme Court of Queensland seeking specific performance, a legal remedy that would have forced Jan to sell him the property at the agreed price. He argued the real estate agent had effectively agreed to a two-day payment plan on behalf of the seller.
Justice Michael Copley rejected this entirely. The court found that real estate agents have authority to accept money and introduce buyers to sellers, but they cannot negotiate changes to contract terms. The agent's accommodating text messages carried no legal weight. The deposit deadline was what the law calls an "essential term" of the contract, meaning time was genuinely of the essence, not a flexible guideline.
The full cost of going to court
By pursuing specific performance instead of negotiating a refund, Evans did not just lose the $98,500 deposit. He also became liable for the seller's legal costs and interest on the forfeited amount. His total loss pushed well above $100,000, a figure that would have been significantly smaller, and possibly zero, had he taken a different approach after the contract was terminated.
The case illustrates a principle that catches many property buyers off guard. When you breach a contract and the other party terminates it, your strongest position is often at the negotiating table, not in a courtroom. Courts enforce contracts as written. If the contract says the deposit is due on signing day and you miss that deadline, you have breached an essential term. The seller is within their rights to keep the money.
What every buyer should know
The practical lessons from Evans v Jan go beyond checking your bank's transfer limits, though that matters too. First, never rely on informal assurances from real estate agents about contract terms. If you need a deadline extended, get written confirmation from the seller's solicitor. Second, if things go wrong, get legal advice before deciding whether to fight or negotiate. Specific performance is a high bar to clear, and the cost of losing is steep. Third, arrange your deposit funds before you sign anything. Bank cheques, pre-arranged higher transfer limits, or solicitor trust account transfers are all safer than discovering your bank's daily ceiling on the day the money is due.
Evans' case is not a story about a predatory seller. Jan exercised her legal rights under a contract that Evans failed to honour. It is a story about a buyer who made one avoidable mistake, then compounded it with a second one by choosing the courtroom over the conference table.