Adverse possession and Crown Leasehold in Queensland

The decision of Eckford v Stanbroke Pastoral Co Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 48 ,although a decision refusing summary judgement raises a very important question of the ability to claim adverse possession of a pastoral lease issued in 1956 under the Land Act 1962 (Queensland).Division 5 of Part 6 of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) which guarantees registered freehold title expressly deals with the right of adverse possession however, there is no such provision in the present Land Act 1994 unlike s 170 of the Crown Lands Act 1989(NSW) which expressly precludes claims for adverse possession of specified non freehold land. There is no mention of adverse possession in any version of the Queensland Land Acts and only s 6(4) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 makes it clear that “the right, title or interest of the Crown” in or to any land is not affected by any adverse possessor.It is against the background that the Court considered the right of an adverse possessor to a Crown lease.

Full circle on costs

This article considers the implications of the decision in Paroz v Clifford Gouldson Lawyers [2012] QDC 151, which examined provisions of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) dealing with costs disclosure and assessment, and also considered associated provisions of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).

The compatibility of leasehold and freehold tenure arrangements with environmental offset and trading initiatives

Environmental offsets and environmental trading initiatives are being rapidly introduced into environmental regulatory regimes. These relatively new legal mechanisms are attempting to fill in the gaps left by command and control regulation. The introduction of environmental offset and trading policy in Queensland will need to be compatible with existing land tenure regulation. Who owns and who uses natural resources are controlled by a range of legislative reservations and restrictions. Reservations give the State ownership of certain natural resources such as minerals, quarry material and, in some circumstances, forest products. Where there is a reservation in operation, the land holders rights are weakened. Restrictions in relation to uses prevent land holders from carrying out certain activities on the land. An example of a restriction of use is the operation of the Vegetation Management Act 1999(Qld), which prescribes the manner in which vegetation is to be dealt with. This article explores the nature of freehold and leasehold land tenure in Queensland and examines the effect of reservations and restrictions upon the operation of environmental offset and trading initiatives. Presently Queensland legislation does not directly address the relationship between land tenure and environmental offset and trading initiatives. The stability of tenure required for the creation of environmental offsets can be at odds with the flexibility allowed for under leasehold arrangements. This flexibility may act to undermine the permanency requirement of environmental offset creation (i.e. the guarantee that the offset is created for the long term).

PI claim clears the statute bar

In Hughes v Impulse Entertainment Pty Ltd & Workcover Queensland [2013] QDC 21 the plaintiff commenced a proceeding more than 60 days after the compulsory conference under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). The question to be determined was whether this meant the claim was statute-barred under that Act, even though the relevant limitation period under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) had not expired

Survey and Mapping Infrastructure Regulation 2004- Comments Relating to a 10-Year Review

Democratic governments raise taxes and charges and spend revenue on delivering peace, order and good government. The delivery process begins with a legislature as that can provide a framework of legally enforceable rules enacted according to the government’s constitution. These rules confer rights and obligations that allow particular people to carry on particular functions at particular places and times. Metadata standards as applied to public records contain information about the functioning of government as distinct from the non-government sector of society. Metadata standards apply to database construction. Data entry, storage, maintenance, interrogation and retrieval depend on a controlled vocabulary needed to enable accurate retrieval of suitably catalogued records in a global information environment. Queensland’s socioeconomic progress now depends in part on technical efficiency in database construction to address queries about who does what, where and when; under what legally enforceable authority; and how the evidence of those facts is recorded. The Survey and Mapping Infrastructure Act 2003 (Qld) addresses technical aspects of where questions – typically the officially recognised name of a place and a description of its boundaries. The current 10-year review of the Survey and Mapping Regulation 2004 provides a valuable opportunity to consider whether the Regulation makes sense in the context of a number of later laws concerned with management of Public Sector Information (PSI) as well as policies for ICT hardware and software procurement. Removing ambiguities about how official place names are to be regarded on a whole-of-government basis can achieve some short term goals. Longer-term goals depend on a more holistic approach to information management – and current aspirations for more open government and community engagement are unlikely to occur without such a longer-term vision.

Open for Inspection? Julstar Pty Ltd v Lynch Morgan Lawyers [2012] QDC 272

In Julstar Pty Ltd v Lynch Morgan Lawyers [2012] QDC 272 Dorney QC DCJ considered whether an applicant for an assessment of all or part of their costs under s 335 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) (LPA) must provide grounds on which they dispute the amount of the costs charged or their liability to pay them. His Honour also made an order for inspection of the solicitor’s file, despite a claimed lien for unpaid fees.

The landlord's duty and unsafe premises

Case note on Sheehy v Hobbs [2012]. It is well established that a landlord owes a tenant a duty of care to “take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable risk of injury to their prospective tenants and members of their household”.1 What often arises is the question of how far the scope of that duty extends. In Sheehy v Hobbs [2012] QSC 333 the plaintiff was injured when she fell down a flight of internal stairs of the townhouse she leased from the defendants. The plaintiff claimed damages for a breach of duty owed to her in negligence, and also alleged breaches of the duties owed to her pursuant to s 103 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1994 (Qld) and her tenancy agreement.

When two wrongs don't make it proportionate.

In Hobbs Haulage Pty Ltd v Zupps Southside Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 319 Jackson J considered the application of the concurrent liability provisions of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld).

Statute bar remains firm

In Hall v Don Faulkner Motors Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 331 Mullins j considered some significant questions relating to the construction of s11 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) as that provision relates to dependency claims.

The use of headings and marginal notes in interpreting Queensland legislation : appearances can be deceptive

This article considers the rules relating to the use of marginal notes and headings in interpreting Queensland legislation, both in its original form and in reprinted legislation. It also examines the application of the principles of construction as to the use of section headings in the interpretation of provisions of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). Finally, it suggests that amendments should be made to the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) in order to clarify the position as to the status of marginal notes and headings in statutory interpretation.

Unidentified vehicle in multi-vehicle accident - failure to notify Nominal Defendant no bar to proceedings against it

In Kumar v Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited [2004] QSC 381 Douglas J examined s37 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) in the context of an accident involving multiple insurers when a notice of accident had not been given to the Nominal Defendant

The caveat in Queensland : getting it off!

This article critically analyses the provisions by which a caveat against dealings may be cleared from a land title in Queensland, namely ss 126, 127 and 128 of the Land Title Act 1994(Qld). It includes a comparison of the current provisions with the pre-existing law and provides a comprehensive guide as to the circumstances in which, and the manner by which, the current provisions may be utilised to clear caveats from land titles in Queensland.

Compensation for logdment of caveat without reasonable cause

This article examines s130 of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) in detail, and includes an analysis of authorities which have interpreted comparable provisions in other Australian jurisdictions and in New Zealand. Its purpose is to provide a comprehensive guide as to the circumstances in which the court may now be expected to award compensation in respect of the lodgment or continuance of a caveat in Queensland. Finally, the author considers whether the changes which have been embodied in s130 may now be regarded as providing adequate protection for persons who suffer damage as a result of the lodgment or continuance of a caveat which cannot ultimately be sustained.

New sale and leasing requirements for owners of swimming pools and their application to strata schemes

This article considers the changes to the Swimming Pools Act 1992 (NSW)(Act) which established a State-wide online register of all private swimming pools in NSW requiring pool owners to register their pools by 19 November 2013. Amendments to the Act introduced changes to the conveyancing and residential tenancy regulations to require vendors and landlords to have a valid Compliance Certificate issued for their swimming pool before offering the property for sale or lease. This article provides a brief overview of the new sale and leasing requirements effective from 29 April 2014, focusing on its application to lot owners within strata and community title schemes and other owners of water front properties with pools on Crown Land Reserves.

Hamcor Pty Ltd v Queensland

The Ipp Report recommendation that for claims for personal injury and death arising from the negligent performance or non-performance of a public function based upon a policy decision, could not establish negligence unless the public authority was so unreasonable that no reasonable public authority in the same position would have made it, was adopted in different ways by all jurisdictions except South Australia and the Northern Territory.1 This introduced the public law concept of Wednesbury unreasonableness to civil liability which caused much academic debate.2 Section 36 of the Queensland provides...