The Most Expensive Half-Truth in Bronte: Why Accuracy Is Not the Same as Disclosure

Keci v Barnes [2026] NSWSC 521

A recent NSW Supreme Court decision is timely reminder for property sellers and agents: a statement can be factually correct and still misleading. Where a vendor chooses to speak on an issue that matters to a purchaser, the law requires more than technical accuracy.  It requires completeness.

Background

The buyers contracted to purchase a Bronte property for $6.2 million in February 2026, attracted primarily by ocean views from an upstairs bedroom.

Next door, a nine-unit residential development had already received consent. During inspections, the vendors’ agent told the buyers that the nine-unit development would not obstruct the views and that new buildings would go no higher than the existing structure. Both statements were true.

What the buyers were not told was that, before the property was listed, the vendors had learned that a separate proposal for up to 120 dwellings on the same adjoining site had been declared State Significant Development (SSD) by the Minister for Planning. The vendors had discussed that proposal with their agent and priced the property with it in mind.

The buyers discovered the SSD proposal months later, after contracts had been exchanged, and sought to rescind.

Issues

The issues that were considered are as follows:

1. Whether the agent’s true but incomplete statements about the adjoining development gave rise to implied misrepresentations;

2. Whether the agent’s statements were binding on the vendors;

3. Whether the non-reliance provisions neutralise implied misrepresentations; and

4. Whether an SSD declaration is equivalent to a Development Application (DA).

Key Takeaways

1. Misleading by Half-Truth 

   
   

   Williams J concluded that, while the agents’ statements about the 9-unit DA were technically correct, they were misleading in substance. By omitting the more significant SSD proposal, on which the vendors had priced the property, they created a false impression.  A reasonable purchaser would expect all material knowledge to have been shared by the vendors. The presence of that known risk alone, regardless of the proposal’s final outcome, was sufficient to mislead.

   
   

2. Agent’s statements bind vendors 

   
   

   Statements made by the agents during viewings were attributed to the vendors. Williams J emphasised that oral assurances about vital features, in this case, the impact on ocean views, directly binding vendors, even if communicated without explicit vendor instructions during inspections.  

   
   

3. Non-Reliance Clauses Do Not Trump Specific Misrepresentations

   
   

   Standard boilerplate non-reliance and disclaimer clauses cannot neutralise a specific representation made directly in response to a buyer's questions about the feature that drove their decision to purchase. A blanket waiver cannot apply.

   
   

4. Limited Reach of Written Pre-Contract Q&A

   
   

   The written response to the purchaser's enquiry concerning neighbouring development applications was limited in scope. Although technically accurate, given that a SSD declaration is distinct from a DA, the response did not encompass the broader planning landscape. Accordingly, it was not misleading by omission in the context of the enquiry received.

   
   

Why This Matters

This does not impose new disclosure obligations on vendors. What it reinforces is a familiar but often underestimated risk – if you choose to answer a buyer’s question, you must tell the whole story. Half an answer with a cover of a boilerplate non-reliance clause in the contract is insufficient.

For vendors and agents, careful handling of inspection conversations is critical – particularly where planning, views or future development are in play.

If you require advice on pre-contract representations, disclosure obligations, or related risks, please contact our people.

Eollyn Cortes 0478 727 395

Sagang Chung 0431 435 333

Helen Jeon 0457 811 882