Regulating for Sustainability : Property Issues

All Australian governments recognize the need to ensure that land and natural resources are used sustainably. In this context, ‘resources’ includes natural resources found on land such as trees and other vegetation, fauna, soil and minerals, and cultural resources found on land such as archaeological sites and artefacts. Regulators use a wide range of techniques to promote sustainability. To achieve their objectives, they may, for example, create economic incentives through bounties, grants and subsidies, encourage the development of self-regulatory codes, or enter into agreements with landowners specifying how the land is to be managed. A common way of regulating is by making administrative orders, determinations or decisions under powers given to regulators by Acts of Parliament (statutes) or by regulations (delegated legislation). Generally the legislation provides for specified rights or duties, and authorises a regulator to make an order or decision to apply the legislative provisions to particular land or cases. For example, legislation might empower a regulator to make an order that requires the owner of a contaminated site to remediate it. When the regulator exercises the power by making an order in relation to particular land, the owner is placed under a statutory duty to remediate. When regulators exercise their statutory powers to manage the use of private land or natural or cultural resources on private land, property law issues can arise. The owner of land has a private property right that the law will enforce against anybody else who interferes with the enjoyment of the right, without legal authority to do so. The law dealing with the enforcement of private property rights forms part of private law. This report focuses on the relationship between the law of private property and the regulation of land and resources by legislation and by administrative decisions made under powers given by legislation (statutory powers).

The ethics, aesthetics and practical politics of ownership in co-creative media

What is ‘best practice’ when it comes to managing intellectual property rights in participatory media content? As commercial media and entertainment business models have increasingly come to rely upon the networked productivity of end-users (Banks and Humphreys 2008) this question has been framed as a problem of creative labour made all the more precarious by changing employment patterns and work cultures of knowledge-intensive societies and globalising economies (Banks, Gill and Taylor 2014). This paper considers how the problems of ownership are addressed in non-commercial, community-based arts and media contexts. Problems of labour are also manifest in these contexts (for example, reliance on volunteer labour and uncertain economic reward for creative excellence). Nonetheless, managing intellectual property rights in collaborative creative works that are created in community media and arts contexts is no less challenging or complex than in commercial contexts. This paper takes as its focus a particular participatory media practice known as ‘digital storytelling’. The digital storytelling method, formalised by the Centre for Digital Storytelling (CDS) from the mid-1990s, has been internationally adopted and adapted for use in an open-ended variety of community arts, education, health and allied services settings (Hartley and McWilliam 2009; Lambert 2013; Lundby 2008; Thumin 2012). It provides a useful point of departure for thinking about a range of collaborative media production practices that seek to address participation ‘gaps’ (Jenkins 2006). However the outputs of these activities, including digital stories, cannot be fully understood or accurately described as user-generated content. For this reason, digital storytelling is taken here to belong to a category of participatory media activity that has been described as ‘co-creative’ media (Spurgeon 2013) in order to improve understanding of the conditions of mediated and mediatized participation (Couldry 2008). This paper reports on a survey of the actual copyrighting practices of cultural institutions and community-based media arts practitioners that work with digital storytelling and similar participatory content creation methods. This survey finds that although there is a preference for Creative Commons licensing a great variety of approaches are taken to managing intellectual property rights in co-creative media. These range from the use of Creative Commons licences (for example, Lambert 2013, p.193) to retention of full copyrights by storytellers, to retention of certain rights by facilitating organisations (for example, broadcast rights by community radio stations and public service broadcasters), and a range of other shared rights arrangements between professional creative practitioners, the individual storytellers and communities with which they collaborate, media outlets, exhibitors and funders. This paper also considers how aesthetic and ethical considerations shape responses to questions of intellectual property rights in community media arts contexts. For example, embedded in the CDS digital storytelling method is ‘a critique of power and the numerous ways that rank is unconsciously expressed in engagements between classes, races and gender’ (Lambert 117). The CDS method privileges the interests of the storyteller and, through a transformative workshop process, aims to generate original individual stories that, in turn, reflect self-awareness of ‘how much the way we live is scripted by history, by social and cultural norms, by our own unique journey through a contradictory, and at times hostile, world’ (Lambert 118). Such a critical approach is characteristic of co-creative media practices. It extends to a heightened awareness of the risks of ‘story theft’ and the challenges of ownership and informs ideas of ‘best practice’ amongst creative practitioners, teaching artists and community media producers, along with commitments to achieving equitable solutions for all participants in co-creative media practice (for example, Lyons-Reid and Kuddell nd.). Yet, there is surprisingly little written about the challenges of managing intellectual property produced in co-creative media activities. A dialogic sense of ownership in stories has been identified as an indicator of successful digital storytelling practice (Hayes and Matusov 2005) and is helpful to grounding the more abstract claims of empowerment for social participation that are associated with co-creative methods. Contrary to the ‘change from below’ philosophy that underpins much thinking about co-creative media, however, discussions of intellectual property usually focus on how methods such as digital storytelling contribute to the formation of copyright law-compliant subjects, particularly when used in educational settings (for example, Ohler nd.). This also exposes the reliance of co-creative methods on the creative assets storytellers (rather than on the copyrighted materials of the media cultures of storytellers) as a pragmatic response to the constraints that intellectual property right laws impose on the entire category of participatory media. At the level of practical politics, it also becomes apparent that co-creative media practitioners and storytellers located in copyright jurisdictions governed by ‘fair use’ principles have much greater creative flexibility than those located in jurisdictions governed by ‘fair dealing’ principles.

Left vs right in black and white : a review

LIKE much of the work that David Williamson is known for, Let the Sunshine concentrates on tensions between characters who operate mainly as mouthpieces for opposing ideologies. Left-wing documentary-maker Toby and his wife Ros have moved to Noosa to escape the rat race in Sydney and some bad press surrounding one of Toby's projects. Trying to make social connections in town, Ros has reconnected with high school classmate Natasha, now the cosmetically-enhanced wife of wealthy right-wing property developer Ron. The posturing and conflict between Toby and Ron come to a head when the women invite their grown children -- struggling songwriter Rick and stressed corporate lawyer Emma -- to dinner to celebrate Toby's birthday, and the results of this encounter drive the rest of the plot. The scenario of Let the Sunshine is contrived, the characters are stereotyped, and their conflicts are little more than an old clash of ideologies cast loosely across the mainstream news media's characterisation of the sides in debates about development, climate change and the economic crisis.

The Law of Real Property Mortgages

This book examines the principles and practice of real estate mortgages in an easily accessible text referenced to all the Australian States. It specifically deals with the major theoretical and practical aspects of the land mortgage including vitiating factors in formation, mortgagees powers and duties and mortgagors’ rights both statutory and other, assignment, insurance and discharge. As a successor to Mortgages Law in Australia, this book adopts an exclusive focus on real estate mortgages in Australia and provides a thorough account of the law through analysis of the plethora of court decisions and statutory provisions in this area. Duncan and Dixon analyse the substance of the mortgage transaction from creation through to rights of enforcement. This analysis includes detailed consideration of the rights and obligations of both mortgagors and mortgagees covering topics such as priorities and tacking, insurance, variation and assignment, rights of discharge, entry into possession, foreclosure and power of sale. In addition, the book contains a separate chapter on factors that may affect the validity and enforcement of a mortgage together with separate consideration of a mortgagee’s right to enforce a guarantee provided on behalf of a mortgagor and the rights and liabilities associated with a receivership regime initiated by a mortgagee. Written for the national market, the book is one of the few substantial works on this subject for practitioners throughout Australia. It is a very accessible text which enables readers to decide whether or not they have a problem and provides primary guidance to its solution. The book has been deliberately, heavily referenced to incorporate statutory references from across Australia and contains extensive case analysis in order to satisfy both these objectives.

Cranes, claims and a statutory right of user

In larger developments there is potential for construction cranes to encroach into the airspace of neighbouring properties. To resolve issues of this nature, a statutory right of user may be sought under s 180 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld). Section 180 allows the court to impose a statutory right of user on servient land where it is reasonably necessary in the interests of effective use in any reasonable manner of the dominant land. Such an order will not be made unless the court is satisfied that it is consistent with public interest, the owner of the servient land can be adequately recompensed for any loss or disadvantage which may be suffered from the imposition and the owner of the servient land has refused unreasonably to agree to accept the imposition of that obligation. In applying the statutory provision, a key practical concern for legal advisers will be the basis for assessment of compensation. A recent decision of the Queensland Supreme Court (Douglas J) provides guidance concerning matters relevant to this assessment. The decision is Lang Parade Pty Ltd v Peluso [2005] QSC 112.

Statutory right of user imposed for landlocked land

The decision of McMurdo J in Pacific Coast Investments Pty Ltd v Cowlishaw [2005] QSC 259 concerned an application under s 180 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) for a statutory right of user.

Waiver of statutory requirements : Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld)

One of the many difficulties associated with the drafting of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) (‘the Act’) is the operation of s 365. If the requirements imposed by this section concerning the return of the executed contract are not complied with, the buyer and the seller will not be bound by the relevant contract and the cooling-off period will not commence. In these circumstances, it is clear that a buyer’s offer may be withdrawn. However, the drafting of the Act creates a difficulty in that the ability of the seller to withdraw from the transaction prior to the parties being bound by the contract is not expressly provided by s 365. On one view, if the buyer is able to withdraw an offer at any time before receiving the prescribed contract documentation the seller also should not be bound by the contract until this time, notwithstanding that the seller may have been bound at common law. However, an alternative analysis is that the legislative omission to provide the seller with a right of withdrawal may be deliberate given the statutory focus on buyer protection. If this analysis were correct the seller would be denied the right to withdraw from the transaction after the contract was formed at common law (that is, after the seller had signed and the fact of signing had been communicated to the buyer).

Section 64 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) and the reluctant buyer

The decision of the Court of Appeal in Dunworth v Mirvac Qld Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 200 arose from unusual circumstances associated with the flood in Brisbane earlier this year. Maris Dunworth (‘the buyer’) agreed to purchase a ground floor residential apartment located beside the Brisbane River at Tennyson from Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd (‘Mirvac’). The original date for completion was 12 May 2009. In earlier proceedings, the buyer had alleged that she had been induced to purchase the apartment by false, misleading and deceptive representations. This claim was dismissed and an order for specific performance was made with a new completion date of 8 February 2011...

Intellectual property and development : theory and practice

Since the 1960s, many developing countries have introduced IP laws to help them in their social and economic development. Introducing these laws was considered as a civilised act and a precondition of developing countries‘ progress from being =under-developed‘ to becoming =developed‘. In 2004, Brazil and Argentina presented a comprehensive proposal on behalf of developing countries to establish the Development Agenda in the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). They put forward a view that IP laws in their current form are not helping those countries in their development, as is constantly being suggested by developed countries, and that there is a need to rethink the international IP system and the work of WIPO. The research undertaken examines the correlation between IP and social and economic development. It investigates how IP systems in developing countries could work to advance their development, especially in the context of the internet. The research considers the theory and practice of IP and development, and proposes a new IP framework which developing countries could employ to further their social and economic development.

Capitalisation of interest on short term loan “irreconcilable with what is right”

Higher than usual rates of interest charged by lenders on short term loans is not of itself considered to be a penalty or evidence of unconscionable conduct. These types of lenders often charge higher rates to take account of increased losses from higher than usual defaults by borrowers.

What’s in a name : Is there a right to terminate a contract for purchase of a unit if the name changes?

The significance of the proposed name of a building to buyers of units off the plan has received recent attention in Queensland and the ACT with differing results. In Gough v South Sky Investments Pty Ltd the Queensland Court of Appeal concluded that the name of the building was not an essential term of the contract and rejected a claim by a number of buyers to terminate their contracts because of the change of name from Oracle to Peppers. In contrast, Rares J in the Federal Court decision of Madison Constructions Pty Ltd v Empire Building Group (ACT) Pty Ltd considered that the name of the building in a proposed development could potentially form the basis of misleading conduct about the association of the seller with a particular development corporation.

Statutory right to rescind contract remained available to buyer subject to specific performance decree

The aftermath of the Queensland floods of January 2011 continues to be played out in the courts. The effect of the floods on such a large scale has awakened the use of some statutory provisions that have not previously been litigated .Section 64 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) is such a section. A version of this provision appears as s 34 of the Sale of Land Act 1982 (Vic). Broadly speaking, these sections permit a buyer of a dwelling house which has been damaged or destroyed between contract and completion to rescind the contract and recover their deposit provided that the rescission notice is given prior to "the date of completion or possession". The Court of Appeal decision of Dunworth v Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 200 appears to be the first litigation upon the application of the section since it came into force in 1975.

Property : a regulatory instrument for protecting private and public interests in the environment

Property in an elusive concept. In many respects it has been regarded as a source of authority to use, develop and make decisions about whatever is the subject matter of this right of ownership. This is true whether the holder of this right of ownership is a private entity or a public entity. Increasingly a right of ownership of this kind has been recognised not only as a source of authority but also as a mechanism for restricting or limiting and perhaps even prohibiting existing or proposed activities that impact upon the environment. It is increasingly therefore an instrument of regulation as much as an instrument of authorisation. The protection and conservation of the environment are ultimately a matter of the public interest. This is not to suggest that the individual holders of rights of ownership are not interested in protecting the environment. It is open to them to do so in the exercise of a right of ownership as a source of authorisation. However a right of ownership – whether private or public – has become increasingly the mechanism according to which the environment is protected and conserved through the use of rights of ownership as a means of regulation. This paper addressed these issues from a doctrinal as well as a practical perspective in how the environment is managed.

The Law of Real Property Mortgages [2nd. Ed.]

This book examines the principles and practice of real estate mortgages in an easily accessible text referenced to all the Australian States. It specifically deals with the major theoretical and practical aspects of the land mortgage, including vitiating factors in formation, mortgagees’ powers and duties and mortgagors’ rights – both statutory and other – as well as assignment, insurance and discharge. It focuses exclusively on real estate mortgages and provides a thorough account of the law through analysis of the plethora of court decisions and statutory provisions in this area. Duncan and Dixon analyse the substance of the mortgage transaction from creation through to rights of enforcement. In its detailed consideration of the rights and obligations of mortgagors and mortgagees, it covers topics such as priorities and tacking, insurance, variation and assignment, rights of discharge, entry into possession, foreclosure and power of sale. In addition, the book contains a separate chapter on factors that may affect the validity and enforcement of a mortgage, together with separate consideration of a mortgagee’s right to enforce a guarantee provided on behalf of a mortgagor, and the rights and liabilities associated with a receivership regime initiated by