Do deeds need a witness in Australia? State by state

A deed signed by an individual needs a witness in NSW, WA, SA, Tasmania and the ACT, but not in Victoria or Queensland. A deed executed by an Australian company under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) never needs a witness, anywhere.

Deeds executed by an individual: witnessing and electronic execution, all eight Australian jurisdictions

Current as at 7 September 2026. Every row in the table below was checked against the jurisdiction's own government legislation register on that date, and the compilation or version relied on is named in the sources section.

Note 1 — what “none found” means, precisely. We read the current consolidation of each of those four property statutes and found no provision permitting a deed to be made or signed in electronic form. That is an absence in those Acts. It is not a finding that electronic deeds are invalid in those jurisdictions — the position under the Electronic Transactions Acts of WA, Tasmania, the ACT and the NT was not verified for this page, and we do not state a view on it. See “What this page does not cover”.

Note 2 — the Northern Territory is drafted differently. Law of Property Act 2000 (NT) s 47(1) provides that where a natural person executes a deed, “sealing alone is not sufficient and the natural person must either sign or place his or her mark on the deed” — that subsection imposes no attestation duty. But s 47(2) then provides that an instrument expressed to be an indenture, a deed, or to be sealed “is, if it is signed and attested by at least one witness who is not a party to the instrument, to be taken to be sealed and … to have been duly executed.” In the NT, witnessing is the statutory route into the deeming rule rather than a standalone command. We state the text and do not state a conclusion; if you are executing a deed in the NT, get advice on whether s 47(2) is the route you are relying on.

Why the answer changes at the border

Deeds executed by individuals are governed by State and Territory property law. There is no national rule. The Commonwealth Electronic Transactions Act 1999 applies to signature requirements “under a law of the Commonwealth” (s 10) — it does not validate a signature required by State law, and every State and Territory ETA carves out, as a class, any requirement for a document to be attested, authenticated, verified or witnessed by someone other than its author.

Deeds executed by companies are governed by the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), which since the Corporations Amendment (Meetings and Documents) Act 2022 contains its own permanent, self-contained signing regime in Part 1.2AA. That is why the company row in the table is the same in every State: the Commonwealth rule applies uniformly and displaces the common-law paper, parchment and delivery rules.

So the practical question is never “is this a deed?” It is who is signing, and where.

New South Wales: a witness is still required, and the electronic provision did not change that

Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) s 38(1) requires that a deed “shall be signed as well as sealed, and shall be attested by at least one witness not being a party to the deed”.

Section 38A(1) then provides that “a deed may be created in electronic form and electronically signed and attested.” The words that matter are “and attested”. Section 38A made the process electronic. It did not remove the witness. A NSW deed signed by an individual in a signing platform still needs a witness to attest it.

NSW does, however, let the witness be somewhere else. Under Electronic Transactions Act 2000 (NSW) s 14G — which was made permanent, not left to sunset — a signature that must be witnessed may be witnessed by audio visual link, provided the witness does four things:

• observes the signatory sign the document in real time (s 14G(2)(a));
• attests or otherwise confirms the signature was witnessed by signing the document or a copy (s 14G(2)(b));
• is reasonably satisfied the document they sign is the same document, or a copy of the document, signed by the signatory (s 14G(2)(c)); and
• endorses the document with a statement specifying the method used to witness the signature and stating that it was witnessed in accordance with s 14G (s 14G(2)(d)).

The fourth condition is the one that gets missed. The endorsement is substantive: omit it and there is no valid s 14G witnessing, no matter how carefully the first three were done. The Act's own note suggests wording along the lines of “signed in counterpart and witnessed over audio visual link in accordance with section 14G of the Electronic Transactions Act 2000”.

Section 14H then defines what counts as the “original document” for an AVL-witnessed deed: it must contain every page or part, every signature or mark of the signatory and witnesses, the s 14G(2)(d) endorsement, and — where signatures were applied to the same page in different places — duplicates of that page so that every signature is present.

Victoria and Queensland: no witness needed, for different reasons

Victoria never had the requirement. Property Law Act 1958 (Vic) s 73 says only that where an individual executes a deed “he shall either sign or place his mark upon the same and sealing alone shall not be deemed sufficient.” There is no attestation limb. Section 73A, which is sometimes misread as the Victorian electronic-execution provision, is nothing of the sort — it is a 1977 deeming provision under which an instrument expressed to be sealed but not actually sealed takes effect as if it had been. It imposes no witness condition. The Victorian electronic-deed rule lives elsewhere: in Electronic Transactions (Victoria) Act 2000 s 12A, which provides that a deed “may be created in electronic form” and “may be signed, sealed and delivered by electronic communication”, and which commenced on 26 April 2021.

Queensland says it out loud. Property Law Act 2023 (Qld) s 50 provides that “a document that is to have effect as a deed may be in the form of an electronic document and may be electronically signed”, and s 51(2) provides that “an individual may sign a document under subsection (1) whether or not in the presence of a witness.” Part 6 Division 1 commenced on 1 August 2025 and re-enacted, essentially unchanged, the position that has applied in Queensland since 30 April 2022 under the former Property Law Act 1974 ss 46C–46G.

That last date matters, because a great deal of published material — including sources that AI answer engines are still quoting — describes Queensland's electronic execution measures as due to expire on 30 April 2022. They did not expire. They were made permanent and have since been re-enacted in a new Act.

The four jurisdictions almost nobody writes about

Western Australia. Property Law Act 1969 (WA) s 9(1) provides that every deed, whether or not affecting property, “shall be signed by the party to be bound thereby” and “shall be attested by at least one witness not being a party to the deed but no particular form of words is required for the attestation.” Section 9(2) removes the sealing requirement except for a corporation using its common or official seal. There is no electronic-execution provision anywhere in the Act.

South Australia — and this is the freshest fact on the page. Law of Property Act 1936 (SA) s 41 was substituted in its entirety by the Statutes Amendment (Planning, Infrastructure and Other Matters) Act 2025 (SA) (Act 64 of 2025) s 6, with effect from 15 January 2026. The new s 41(1)(d) provides that “a person may sign, seal or execute a deed by signing, sealing or executing an electronic form of the deed using electronic means” — South Australia now has one of the clearest electronic-deed provisions in the country. But s 41(2)(a) keeps the witness: “The execution of a deed must be attested … where the deed is executed by a natural person — by at least one witness who is not a party to the deed.” South Australia therefore permits an electronic deed and requires it to be witnessed. Anything written about South Australian deeds before 15 January 2026 is describing a repealed section.

Tasmania. Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1884 (Tas) s 63(1)(a) provides that “a natural person executes a deed by signing, or making a mark on, the deed”, and s 63(2)(a) provides that execution “must be attested … where the deed is executed by a natural person, by at least one witness who is not a party to the deed.” The section was substituted in 2000 and the Act contains no electronic-execution provision.

Australian Capital Territory. Civil Law (Property) Act 2006 (ACT) s 219(1) is the strictest drafting of the eight: a deed, whether or not it affects property, “must be — (a) signed and sealed; and (b) attested by at least 1 witness who is not a party to the deed, using any form of words.” Section 219(3) softens the sealing limb by deeming an instrument expressed to be an indenture, deed or sealed to be sealed if it is signed and attested in accordance with the section — but the witness stays. The Act contains no electronic-execution provision.

Companies: no witness, either form, split execution allowed

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 127(3A) provides that a company may execute a document as a deed in accordance with s 127(1) “(a) without that execution being witnessed; and (b) regardless of whether the document … is in physical form or electronic form.” Section 127(3B) adds that “delivery is not necessary”. Sections 126(6)–(7) do the same for an individual acting with the company's express or implied authority, who also need not be appointed by deed (s 126(4)).

Part 1.2AA s 110A(4) goes further and expressly permits split execution: it does not require a person to sign the same form of the document as another person, the same page, or to use the same method, and does not require all the information in the document to be in the form each person signs. The statutory note gives the worked example — one director signs a physical copy by hand, another signs an electronic copy by electronic means, and the execution is valid.

This is the single most useful rule for a practice with directors in different cities. It is also the rule that removes the “we'll need to post it around for wet signatures” objection entirely, for companies.

Traps

1. A power of attorney clause can pull a Queensland deed back to paper. Property Law Act 2023 (Qld) s 47(1) provides that a general power of attorney, and a power of attorney given under a deed, “must be a physical document that is signed by the individual in the presence of a witness”, unless it forms part of an arms-length commercial transaction (s 47(2)–(3)). Powers of attorney are routinely embedded in security documents, trust deeds and unit-holder agreements. A deed that contains one may still need wet ink and a witness in Queensland even though the deed itself would not.

2. Queensland enduring documents are out of the division altogether. Property Law Act 2023 (Qld) s 46 excludes enduring powers of attorney and advance health directives from the division entirely. Different Act, different rules.

3. Queensland's consent test is stricter than the Commonwealth's. The Dictionary definition of “accepted method” in the Queensland Act requires the method to be “consented to by each other signatory”. The Commonwealth ETA test (s 10(1)(d)) requires consent from the person the signature is given to. In a Queensland multi-party deed, consent needs to run between the signatories.

4. Land titles are a separate regime and nothing above displaces them. The NSW Real Property Act, the Victorian Transfer of Land Act and the Queensland Land Title Act impose their own execution rules for registrable dealings; Queensland's Property Law Act 2023 s 48 says so expressly. Registrable land dealings run through an Electronic Lodgment Network with its own Verification of Identity and Client Authorisation requirements under the Electronic Conveyancing National Law. A general e-signature platform is not a substitute for that process.

5. Section 127 covers companies — not everything that looks like one. It does not apply to individual trustees, partnerships, unincorporated or incorporated associations, or foreign companies. Those signers fall back to the State or Territory law of the place of execution. Practical consequence: the same family trust deed can need a witness or not depending purely on whether the trustee is Mrs Nguyen or Nguyen Investments Pty Ltd.

6. “Sealing” has quietly stopped meaning wax, but has not stopped meaning something. WA s 9(2), SA s 41, Tasmania s 63(5), the ACT s 219(3) and Victoria s 73A all deal with sealing in slightly different ways. Where sealing survives as a formality, it is generally satisfied by the instrument being expressed to be sealed or to be a deed — but the drafting differs, and the ACT still states the requirement on the face of s 219(1)(a).

Three things widely repeated online that are wrong

1. “NSW s 38A was introduced by the remote-witnessing legislation.” It was not. Section 38A was inserted by the Conveyancing Legislation Amendment Act 2018 (NSW) (No 75) and amended by the Customer Service Legislation Amendment Act 2021 (NSW) (No 32). The remote-witnessing statute is a different Act — the Electronic Transactions Amendment (Remote Witnessing) Act 2021 (NSW) (No 33). Two different reforms, two different Acts, conflated constantly.

2. “Victoria's s 73A is the electronic-execution provision.” It is not. Section 73A is a deeming provision about sealing, dating from the Property Law (Deeds) Act 1977. Victoria's electronic-deed rule is in Electronic Transactions (Victoria) Act 2000 s 12A, commenced 26 April 2021.

3. “Queensland's electronic execution rules expired on 30 April 2022.” They did not. The measures were made permanent from 30 April 2022 under the former Property Law Act 1974 ss 46C–46G, and were re-enacted in the Property Law Act 2023 (Qld), Part 6 Division 1, commencing 1 August 2025. (While we're here: the Queensland Act is No. 27 of 2023, frequently mis-cited.)

And two more this page adds:

4. “NSW is the only State that still requires a witness.” No. Six of the eight States and Territories require, or condition their deeming rule on, attestation by at least one non-party witness. Victoria and Queensland are the exceptions, not NSW.

5. “South Australia hasn't modernised.” South Australia substituted the whole of s 41 of the Law of Property Act 1936 with effect from 15 January 2026 and now has an express electronic-execution limb in s 41(1)(d). Any source describing the old s 41 is describing repealed text.

What this page does not cover

Stated plainly, because a page that pretends to cover everything is not worth citing.

• Whether an electronic deed is valid in WA, Tasmania, the ACT or the NT. We verified that those four property statutes contain no express electronic-execution provision. We did not verify the position under the Electronic Transactions Act 2011 (WA), the Electronic Transactions Act 2000 (Tas), the Electronic Transactions Act 2001 (ACT) or the Electronic Transactions (Northern Territory) Act 2000, or their subordinate instruments. Do not read the blank cells as a “no”.
• Whether a NSW attorney signing a deed for a corporation needs a witness. Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) s 51A(3) appears to require a witness where an individual attorney signs a deed for a corporation. How that interacts with Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 126(6), which says the opposite for a company's agent, is a genuine grey area, and we found no primary source resolving it. We do not state a position either way.
• Land titles and conveyancing. Registrable dealings are governed by the State land-titles Acts and the Electronic Conveyancing National Law, not by anything on this page.
• Wills, enduring powers of attorney, advance health directives, affidavits and statutory declarations. All are governed by separate succession, guardianship, oaths and court-procedure legislation with their own, generally stricter, witnessing rules.
• SMSF binding death benefit nominations, and other document types with bespoke witnessing rules under superannuation or tax law. Not researched here.
• Case law. This page states what the statutes say. It does not analyse how courts have applied them.
• Anything outside Australia.

This page states what the legislation says, with the source for each statement. It is not legal advice. Every provision cited was read on the government legislation register for that jurisdiction on 7 September 2026, and the compilation, version or reprint relied on is named in the sources below. Legislation changes; check the current compilation before you rely on anything here. Whether a particular document is a deed, and how it should be executed in your circumstances, is a question for your lawyer.