Buyer Gets Out of Contract with Mirvac at Tennyson

See Wilson v. Mirvac regarding Tennyson Reach

"it is declared that the applicant has validly cancelled, pursuant to s 214(4) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act1997 (“the BCCMA”), the written contract entitled “Sale Contract Tennyson Reach” dated 4 December 2007 between the applicant and the respondent"

"The apartment was to be the principal place of residence for the applicant, her husband, and two teenage children. It was adjacent to the Queensland Tennis Centre (a major public facility) and a busy public thoroughfare. At the time the applicant’s husband’s occupation was such that the whole family might reasonably have a heightened sense of vulnerability to unlawful attack. The security system had been promoted as an integral feature of the development and arrangements for its management. Viewed objectively, a person in the applicant’s circumstances in August 2009 would be disadvantaged in a substantial way by its omission. That disadvantage was compounded by the omission of other items of property which would have enhanced the amenity of the apartment."

See also Changes to Your Development: When is a Buyer Materially Prejudiced? - Property and Commercial Services Update - May 2010