Underquoting: the $600,000 clause Victoria is now prosecuting twice

Consumer Affairs Victoria's case against a Glen Waverley agency and three of its representatives is listed for Friday 4 September. Five months ago the same court penalised another Melbourne agency $600,000 over a near identical commission arrangement, in a case the agency admitted.

By Real Estate Today Editorial Team

The Federal Court will next week hear the second Victorian underquoting case in five months to centre on how an agency's commission was calculated, rather than on the price ranges it advertised.

The pattern matters more than either case on its own. In April the court penalised a Melbourne agency $600,000 over contracts that paid standard commission at the vendor's reserve and up to 25 per cent on anything above it. That matter was admitted and decided. A second case, listed for Friday 4 September, involves allegations about a similar structure paying a far higher multiple.

For agency principals, the through line is that Victoria's regulator has now twice put a tiered commission schedule in front of a Federal Court judge as evidence going to conduct, not as a separate commercial arrangement.

What is alleged in the case listed for Friday

Consumer Affairs Victoria announced in July that it had filed Federal Court proceedings against Harcourts Judd White, which now operates as Ray White Judd White Group, and representatives Arkan (Andrew) Dimashki, Xiaohong (Anna) Du and Julie Guiqian Wells. According to the regulator's announcement, the matter is listed for 4 September.

The regulator alleges eleven properties were underquoted. It alleges the agency's agreements provided commission of up to five times the base rate on any amount achieved above the agreed price. It alleges some properties sold as much as 60 per cent above the advertised range, and that mandatory buyer guides were not updated as buyer interest increased.

Consumer Affairs Victoria says it is seeking penalties, orders requiring the respondents to publicise the proceedings, and orders requiring the completion of training. Maximum penalties available run to $2.5 million for an individual and $50 million for a company.

Every one of those matters is an allegation by the regulator. None has been tested, no findings have been made, and the respondents' position will be put to the court. Real Estate Today has relied on Consumer Affairs Victoria's public announcement of the proceedings, and has not seen the statement of claim.

Consumer Affairs Victoria has named the respondent as Harcourts Judd White, now operating as Ray White Judd White Group. Neither Harcourts nor Ray White is a respondent to the proceeding.

The case that has already been decided

The April judgment is the one principals can learn from now, because it is settled.

White Ray Oakleigh Pty Ltd, trading as Ray White Oakleigh, was ordered to pay $600,000 over nine properties at Rowville, Mulgrave, Bentleigh East and Blackburn South, advertised between February 2022 and November 2023.

Its vendor agreements carried standard commission at the reserve and rates of up to 25 per cent on any amount above it. Consumer Affairs Victoria's case was that once vendors had signed, agents pressed them to lower their reserves, which lifted the commission payable. Internal communications showed agents knew the properties would sell for considerably more than the advertised figures.

Justice John Snaden found the company had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and made false and misleading representations. The company admitted the conduct and had stopped operating the Oakleigh office in 2025.

That is the template. A commission rate that steps up sharply above an agreed figure creates a documented financial interest in that figure being low, and the documents sit in the agency's own file, signed by the vendor.

Enforcement has changed shape

The Victorian government said in July that its underquoting taskforce had issued more than $3 million in fines, received over 8,800 complaints, monitored more than 3,200 sales campaigns, attended over 500 auctions, issued more than 400 official warnings and fined more than 260 agents.

Those figures describe a program that has been running at volume for some time, almost entirely through infringement notices. The two Federal Court actions are a change in kind rather than degree. An infringement notice is a cost of doing business for a substantial agency. A Federal Court penalty, with orders to publicise the outcome, is not.

Announcing the proceedings alongside a broader reform package in July, Minister for Consumer Affairs Paul Edbrooke said Victorians were sick of wasting weekends chasing homes they were never going to get, and that underquoting was illegal and being stamped out.

That package included publishing reserve prices at least seven days before an auction or sale, with the government stating that from 1 October agents who fail to comply would not be able to proceed to auction, and a lift in maximum corporate penalties to $100 million. As Real Estate Today reported on 24 August, the seven day reserve rule is not law yet, and agencies would be well advised to prepare for it regardless.

Sources: Consumer Affairs Victoria announcements of 24 April and 18 July 2026, and the Victorian government's reform statement of 18 July 2026. Allegations in the proceeding listed for 4 September are untested and no findings have been made against any respondent.