The Block’s spectacular 2026 auction finale was supposed to be a moment of celebration for winners Courtney and Sev. Their renovated Mount Eliza home fetched an extraordinary $4.72 million, delivering a $1.27 million profit above reserve.
But days after the dramatic result, an unexpected detail about one of the unsuccessful bidders has brought a new layer of scrutiny to the auction.
It has emerged that the buyer who competed against the eventual purchasers of Courtney and Sev’s home had appointed an auction specialist from the very real estate agency involved in selling the property to bid on their behalf.
Even more unusually, the same buyer had also engaged another professional buyer’s agent to represent them at the auction of a different home later that evening.
The arrangement was not presented as illegal, and the people involved have explained their respective roles. However, it has prompted a wider warning from Australia’s buyers’ advocacy industry about the potential risks when buyers appoint representatives connected to the agency selling a property.
A RECORD-BREAKING RESULT — FOLLOWED BY UNEXPECTED QUESTIONS
Courtney and Sev made history on The Block after their House 4 property sold for $4.72 million, comfortably exceeding its $3.45 million reserve.
The result delivered a $1.27 million auction profit, making them the most successful contestants of the season. Their overall haul reached $1.87 million when the value of prizes won during filming and the additional $100,000 winner’s bonus were included.
The auction was conducted by Paul Tzamalis of The Auction Company on behalf of OBrien Real Estate, whose representatives Stavros Ambatzidis and Kayn Luff had been responsible for selling the property.
Yet one of the buyers competing for the home had an unusual arrangement of their own.
THE OBRIEN EXECUTIVE WHO WAS BIDDING FOR A BUYER
Andrew Martin, OBrien Real Estate’s Strategic Growth Advisor and Head of Auctions, was in the auction room representing buyers who were travelling in Japan.
He was acting through a separate business he operates, BID360, which provides auction-bidding services to buyers.
Martin confirmed that he had signed the necessary documentation authorising him to bid on their behalf. He also stressed that he had no direct involvement in the sale of Courtney and Sev’s House 4, which was being handled by his OBrien colleagues.
“I was representing buyers travelling through Japan and signed a form as a buyer’s advocate for my own business BID360,” he explained.
Martin maintained that he was acting independently and did not believe the arrangement necessarily created a conflict of interest, provided he was not the listing agent.
He also said he had not charged the buyers for representing them at the auction.
His position was that helping a buyer bid was not fundamentally different from assisting someone who was physically present in the room, although he acknowledged that additional documentation had been completed to formalise the arrangement.
THE SECOND REPRESENTATIVE — AND ANOTHER TWIST
The story became even more unusual when it emerged that the same buyers had also engaged professional buyer’s agent Andrew Date to represent them in the auction for House 5.
That meant two different representatives had been authorised to bid for the same clients during the evening, but for two separate properties.
Date confirmed the arrangement, saying it had been made at the buyer’s own initiative and had initially surprised him.
He explained that he had been watching the auctions and would not have continued bidding for House 5 if the clients had successfully purchased House 4.
“When I first heard he was bidding on their behalf … I couldn’t get my head around it,” Date said.
He also highlighted the distinction between their professional roles: Martin was an auctioneer, while Date was a professional buyer’s agent.
“I’m a professional bidder and he is a professional auctioneer. So there are differences in bidding for someone versus calling an auction,” he added.
In the end, Martin’s clients did not secure Courtney and Sev’s property. They went on to purchase House 5 through Date instead.
Date said his clients were happy with their purchase and praised the auctioneer who conducted the House 4 sale.
THE CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST QUESTION
While Martin defended his involvement, the unusual arrangement has drawn attention to a broader issue in the property industry: how independent can a buyer’s representative be when they are connected to the agency selling the property?
Zoran Solano, president of the Real Estate Buyers Agents Association of Australia (REBAA), said buyers should think carefully before engaging an agent or auctioneer associated with the firm marketing the property.
He made clear that he was not commenting specifically on Martin’s conduct, but warned that the arrangement could create risks for both buyers and agents.
One concern is whether a buyer can be confident they have received all the relevant information about a property and the auction before being encouraged to continue bidding.
Solano also raised the possibility of miscommunication, misrepresentation and pressure tactics.
“As buyers’ agents, it is something we are trying to encourage buyers to not do,” he said.
He acknowledged that the practice was not illegal and was used across Australia, but stressed that buyers needed to understand the potential complications before agreeing to such an arrangement.
WHY PROFESSIONAL REPRESENTATION MATTERS
The distinction, according to Solano, goes beyond simply having someone in the room to raise a bidding paddle.
A professional buyer’s agent is expected to support a client with a bidding strategy, rather than simply communicate instructions as the auction progresses.
He described it as the difference between having someone speak on a buyer’s behalf and having a professional provide informed support throughout the process.
There can also be legal and financial considerations. Rules differ between Australian states, and in Queensland, for example, a person registered as a proxy bidder may face liability if the buyer later decides not to proceed with the purchase.
Solano also noted that buyers’ agents generally carry insurance designed for the risks associated with their professional work.
For buyers who only need assistance with bidding or negotiating, a one-off service commonly costs between $800 and $1,200, although fees vary between providers.
A SUCCESSFUL AUCTION — BUT A DEBATE THAT CONTINUES
There is no suggestion in the reporting that Courtney and Sev’s winning result was invalid or that their auction was improperly conducted.
Martin has explained why he believed his role was independent, while Date confirmed the buyers’ separate arrangement for House 5. The buyers ultimately purchased the fifth property through Date.
Nevertheless, the episode has raised a question that extends well beyond The Block: when an agency is involved in selling a property, should someone connected to that same business also be representing a prospective buyer in the bidding?
For Courtney and Sev, the $4.72 million result remains a remarkable career-defining moment. But the unexpected arrangement involving the underbidder has ensured that the conversation around this year’s auction finale did not end when the hammer fell.