In the property markets of Melbourne's eastern suburbs, where the dream of homeownership is already strained by price and competition, a consumer watchdog has brought Federal Court action against a prominent real estate firm and three of its agents, alleging that advertised prices were deliberately set far below expected sale values to manufacture urgency and reward agents handsomely through bonus commission structures. The case against Harcourts Judd White touches something older than any single transaction — the question of whether those entrusted to guide buyers and sellers through life's l
Real estate firm accused of systematic underquoting by hundreds of thousands
It was all strategy, they told the vendor's family
Mark
Why does it matter that these agents told the vendor's family it was "all strategy"? Isn't that just salesmanship?
Mimi
It matters because it shows intent. If you're deliberately underquoting and you know it, and you're telling people not to worry because the price will go higher, you're admitting the deception is calculated. That's the difference between a mistake and a scheme.
Mark
But the vendors signed the contracts with the kicker commissions. Didn't they understand what they were agreeing to?
Mimi
They may have understood the commission structure, but the evidence suggests they didn't understand how aggressively the agents would suppress the advertised price to trigger it. The agents had information—buyer inquiries, market signals—that they weren't sharing. That's the asymmetry.
Mark
The agents are still selling properties right now. How is that allowed?
Mimi
The allegations haven't been proven yet. Until the court decides, they're still licensed to work. But it does mean buyers and sellers are potentially dealing with people accused of systematic deception while the case is pending.
Mark
What changes with the new law in October?
Mimi
The reserve price becomes public seven days before sale. Right now, agents can keep that number secret and use it however they want. Once it's published, buyers will know the actual floor, and agents lose the ability to play games with the gap between advertised price and what the seller will actually accept.
Mark
Is $600,000 a real penalty for a real estate firm?
Mimi
For a single firm, it's significant. But the maximum penalty is $100 million. The question is whether this case results in something closer to that ceiling or closer to what Ray White Oakleigh paid. That will signal how seriously the system takes this.
Le Pouls
- Eleven properties in Glen Waverley and Wheelers Hill were allegedly advertised at prices hundreds of thousands of dollars below what agents privately expected — and in some cases, explicitly knew — they would fetch.
- A text message trail and an agent's own words to a vendor's family — 'it's all strategy' — suggest the low price guides were not errors but instruments, designed to flood inspections with buyers and drive competitive bidding.
- 'Kicker' commission contracts gave agents a direct financial stake in pushing final prices as high as possible, with bonuses reaching five times the base rate when sales cleared thresholds set up to 60 percent above the advertised range.
- Even as buyers offered prices well above the listed range, agents allegedly refused those offers and left the public price guide unchanged — prolonging the illusion and deepening the pool of competing interest.
- The three named agents continue to list and sell properties while proceedings unfold, with one having moved to a new firm, and the September 4 Federal Court date looming against a backdrop of maximum penalties that could reach $100 million.
In the property markets of Melbourne's eastern suburbs, where the dream of homeownership is already strained by price and competition, a consumer watchdog has brought Federal Court action against a prominent real estate firm and three of its agents, alleging that advertised prices were deliberately set far below expected sale values to manufacture urgency and reward agents handsomely through bonus commission structures. The case against Harcourts Judd White touches something older than any single transaction — the question of whether those entrusted to guide buyers and sellers through life's largest financial decisions are playing by rules that serve the public or only themselves. With new transparency laws approaching and penalties potentially reaching $100 million, the case arrives as a reckoning long signalled by the data.
Victoria's consumer watchdog has launched Federal Court action against Melbourne real estate firm Harcourts Judd White and three of its agents — Andrew Dimashki, Anna Du, and Julie Wells — over an alleged systematic scheme to underquote property prices across eleven sales in the city's eastern suburbs. Consumer Affairs Victoria has described it as one of the most serious underquoting cases since its dedicated taskforce was established.
The allegations centre on a deliberate gap between what agents advertised and what they privately expected properties to sell for. In one telling exchange, an agent reportedly told a vendor's family not to be concerned about the low listing price because it was 'all strategy.' Properties in Glen Waverley and Wheelers Hill sold for hundreds of thousands above their advertised ranges, and the watchdog says it holds text messages showing agents discussing how much higher prices would ultimately climb.
The financial architecture of the scheme is central to the case. Vendors signed contracts containing 'kicker' commissions — bonuses reaching up to five times the base rate — triggered when sales exceeded agreed thresholds set as much as 60 percent above the advertised price. The higher the final sale, the more the agents earned, giving them a direct incentive to keep official price guides artificially low while stoking competitive pressure among buyers. Agents allegedly refused offers well above the advertised range from interested buyers, yet made no adjustment to their public asking price.
All three agents were still actively selling properties when proceedings were announced. Wells has since moved to Buxton, though no allegations have been made against that firm. Dimashki and Du remain at Harcourts Judd White. The case follows earlier reporting that found 80 percent of 66 tracked Harcourts Judd White properties sold above their advertised top price, with an average overage exceeding $80,000.
New state legislation requiring agents to publish a genuine reserve price at least seven days before auction takes effect on October 1, though this case will be heard under the previous framework. Maximum penalties reach $100 million for corporations and $2.5 million for individuals. A comparable case against Ray White Oakleigh earlier this year resulted in a $600,000 fine. The Federal Court hearing is set for September 4.
Victoria's consumer watchdog has filed Federal Court action against one of Melbourne's most prominent real estate firms, alleging a systematic scheme to underquote property prices by hundreds of thousands of dollars across eleven sales in the city's eastern suburbs. The case, brought against Harcourts Judd White and three of its agents—Andrew Dimashki, Anna Du, and Julie Wells—represents what Consumer Affairs Victoria describes as one of the most serious underquoting violations since the watchdog launched its dedicated taskforce to police the practice.
The allegations paint a picture of deliberate deception. According to Consumer Affairs Victoria executive director Nicole Rich, the agency and agents knowingly advertised properties at prices significantly below what they expected them to sell for, then used that gap to their financial advantage. In one instance, Rich said, an agent told a vendor's family not to worry about the artificially low listing price because it was "all strategy." The properties in question sold in Glen Waverley and Wheelers Hill, with some cases showing discrepancies of several hundred thousand dollars between the advertised range and the final sale price.
The financial incentive structure made the practice lucrative for the agents. Vendors were locked into contracts offering "kicker" commissions—bonuses that could reach up to five times the base rate—when properties sold above an agreed threshold. In some cases, these thresholds were set as much as 60 percent above the advertised range, meaning the agents stood to earn substantially more money the higher the final price climbed. Rich revealed that the watchdog has evidence, including text messages, showing agents discussing how much higher prices would ultimately go, and in at least one case, explicitly reassuring a vendor's family that the low advertising price was intentional.
What makes the case particularly damaging is the pattern of inaction when presented with evidence of buyer interest. Rich told reporters that potential buyers frequently contacted the agents offering prices well above the advertised range, yet the agents refused these offers and failed to adjust their public asking price. This allowed them to continue attracting more interested parties while keeping the official price guide artificially depressed—a tactic that appears designed to generate competitive pressure and drive the final sale price upward.
The three agents named in the action are still actively selling properties, with inspections scheduled even as the legal proceedings began. Wells has since moved to another firm, Buxton, though Consumer Affairs Victoria has not made allegations against that agency. Dimashki and Du remain at Harcourts Judd White. Neither Du nor Wells responded to requests for comment, and Dimashki had not yet responded at the time of the announcement.
This action arrives in the wake of significant scrutiny of the practice. Last year, an investigation by this publication found underquoting to be widespread across Melbourne's real estate market, with Harcourts Judd White emerging as one of the worst offenders in the data examined. Of 66 properties tracked by that investigation, 80 percent sold above the top of the advertised range, with an average overage of more than $80,000 per property. The investigation revealed that prospective buyers could not reliably trust the price guides agents published.
The state government has responded to the broader crisis by introducing new legislation requiring agents to publish a property's genuine reserve price at least seven days before sale. Those laws take effect October 1, though the current case against Harcourts Judd White and the three agents will proceed under the previous regulatory framework. Maximum penalties under existing law reach $100 million for corporations and $2.5 million for individuals, though Consumer Affairs Victoria has not yet disclosed what penalty it is seeking. A comparable case in April resulted in a $600,000 fine against Ray White Oakleigh for underquoting nine properties. The Federal Court hearing is scheduled for September 4.
Citations marquantes
We see discrepancies of several hundred thousand dollars in some of those cases. We allege from the evidence that it's very, very clear the agency and the agents were well aware they were advertising the prices significantly lower than the market was likely to sell for.— Nicole Rich, Consumer Affairs Victoria executive director
Envie de l'histoire complète ?
Lire l'original sur The Age ↗
Crime & Justice