Compensation sought for an improper caveat

Re Brooks’ Caveat [2014] QSC 76 is a decision of Henry J delivered on 24 April 2014. The decision considers the operation of s 130 of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld). That section provides that a person who lodges or continues a caveat without reasonable cause must compensate anyone else who suffers loss or damage as a result...

Health and guardianship law : guardianship and administration application in the matter of MDC [2014] QCAT 338

The recent decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) in Guardianship and administration application in the matter of MDC [2014] QCAT 338, provides an important ruling on the limits of who can be appointed as an enduring power of attorney under the Powers of Attorney Act 1998 (Qld). In particular, the tribunal adopted a broad interpretation of the term "health provider" when considering the limits on who can be appointed as an enduring power of attorney under the legislation...

'A slap on the wrist'? The conservative agenda in Queensland, Australia

Recent amendments to youth justice legislation in Queensland include opening Children’s Court proceedings, removing the Principle of Detention as a Last Resort, facilitating transfers of 17 year-old offenders to adult prisons, instigating new bail offences, and introducing mandatory boot camp orders. This article examines the context of these changes including the inadequacies of the public policy process, and the impassioned political rhetoric imbued with simplistic slogans. This is a case study of regressive youth justice policy and the article reflects on the many causes underlying the reactive winding back of reform.

Major changes to property law in Queensland

From 1 December 2014 a number of major changes were made to property law in Queensland with the simultaneous commencement of the Land Sales and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2014 (Qld) and the Property Occupations Act 2014 (Qld). This article examines these changes, their rationale and their implications for practice.

Compensation or consideration for a statutory right of user?

Section 180 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) makes provision for an applicant to seek a statutory right of user over a neighbour’s property where such right of use is reasonably necessary in the interests of effective use in any reasonable manner of the dominant land. A key issue in an application under s 180 is compensation. Unfortunately, while s 180 expressly contemplates that an order for compensation will include provision for payment of compensation to the owner of servient land there are certain issues that are less clear. One of these is the basis for determination of the amount of compensation. In this regard, s 180(4)(a) provides that, in making an order for a statutory right of user, the court: (a) shall, except in special circumstances, include provision for payment by the applicant to such person or persons as may be specified in the order of such amount by way of compensation or consideration as in the circumstances appears to the court to be just The operation of this statutory provision was considered by de Jersey CJ (as he then was) in Peulen v Agius [2015] QSC 137.

Breaches of lease between exercise of option to renew and expiry of lease in Queensland

The decision of Greppo v Jam-Cal Bundaberg Pty Ltd [2015] QCA 131 illustrates a defect in s 128 of the Property Law Act 1974(Qld) which gives a right to a lessee to apply for relief against forfeiture against loss of a right to exercise an option to renew. The defect arises because the legislation does not adequately deal with breaches that occur after the exercise of the option but before the expiry of the lease. Most commercial leases of all kinds have a standard provisions, as the lease in this case, as a conditions of the exercise of the option to renew that the lessee will have given notice of exercise within the time specified to the lessor and will have up to the date of expiry of the lease paid all rent and observed all lessee’s covenants. The difficulties occur because invariably an option must be exercised before the expiry of the lease when a lessee may not be in breach of the lease but may later prior to the expiry of the lease fall into breach. As this decision indicates,at least in Queensland, that the lessee who desires to challenge the lessor’s right to enforce those conditions can neither seek relief under s 128 against forfeiture of the right to exercise the option ,or indeed, under s 124 of the Property Law Act 1974 to preserve the agreement for lease brought about by the otherwise regular exercise of the option to renew. The decision cries out for legislative reform along the lines of s 133E of the Conveyancing Act 1919(NSW) which was amended in 2001 to meet this contingency.

From court to QCAT, or not

In Sutton v Tang [2015] QDC 191 Reid DCJ considered the circumstances that may be relevant to the exercise of the discretion to order a transfer of a proceeding to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the tribunal) under s53 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (the Act).

Decision examines wrongdoers and liability

In Ligon Sixty-Three Pty Ltd v ClarkeKann [2015] QSC 153 the court considered an application to join parties as defendants when it was alleged they were concurrent wrongdoers for the purpose of the proportionate liability provisions of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) (the Act).

Costs on review - what charges are appropriate?

In Picamore Pty Ltd v Challen [2015] QDC 067 McGill DCJ considered the nature of a review under r742 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) in the context of a review of a costs assessment conducted under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). His Honour increased the amount that had been allowed by the costs assessor for a number of items. The judgment includes observations about what may appropriately be charged for particular items of legal work.

‘Lemon Laws’: an inquiry into consumer protections and remedies for buyers of new motor vehicles

1. Under the Terms of Reference for the Committee’s Inquiry, ‘lemons’ are defined as ‘new motor vehicles with numerous, severe defects that re-occur despite multiple repair attempts or where defects have caused a new motor vehicle to be out of service for a prolonged period of time’. Consumers are currently protected in relation to lemon purchases by the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) located in Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA). The ACL applies as a law of Queensland pursuant to the Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld). The voluntary recall and consumer guarantees law took effect on 1 January 2011. 2. In 2006, the Government of Victoria made a commitment to introduce a lemon law into the provisions of the then Fair Trading Act 1999 (Vic). The public consultation process on the proposal to introduce a lemon law for motor vehicle purchases in Victoria was conducted by Ms Janice Munt MP, with the assistance of Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV). CAV released an Issues Paper to canvas with industry and the community options for the development and introduction of a motor vehicle lemon law.(Consumer Affairs Victoria, Introducing Victorian motor vehicle lemon laws, Issues Paper, (September, 2007). 3. A CAV report prepared by Janice Munt MP was released in July, 2008 (Consumer Affairs Victoria, Motor Cars: A report on the motor vehicle lemon law consultations (July 2008) (Victorian Lemon Law Report). However, the Victorian proposal was overtaken by events leading to the adoption of a uniform consumer protection law in all Australian jurisdictions, the ACL. 4. The structure of this submission is to consider first the three different bases upon which consumers can obtain relief for economic loss arising from defects in motor vehicles. The second part of the submission considers the difficulties encountered by consumers in litigating motor vehicle disputes in the courts and tribunals. The third part of the submission examines the approach taken in other jurisdictions to resolving motor vehicle disputes. The final part of the submission considers a number of possible reforms that could be made to the existing law and its enforcement to reduce consumer detriment arising from the purchase of ‘lemon’ motor vehicles. 5. There are three principal bases upon which a consumer can obtain redress for defects in new motor vehicles under the ACL. The first is where the manufacturer admits liability and initiates the voluntary recall procedure provided for in s 128 of the ACL. Under this basis the manufacturer generally repairs or replaces the part subject to the recall free of charge. The second basis is where the manufacturer or dealer denies liability and the consumer is initiates proceedings in the court or tribunal seeking a statutory remedy under the ACL, the nature of which will depend on whether the failure to comply with the consumer guarantee was major or not. The third basis upon which a consumer can obtain redress is pursuant to public enforcement by the ACCC. Each basis will be considered in this part. What all three bases have in common is the need to conduct an investigation to identify the nature of the defect and how it arose.

The magic of numbers and the amazing disappearing act : the politics of counting youth homelessness

No-one wants to see young people who are no longer able to stay at home with their parents living in situations that are neither stable nor safe. Most Australians also appreciate that youth homelessness is typically a result of factors beyond the control of young people like poverty, lack of affordable housing, parental divorce or separation, family conflict and violence, sexual abuse, or mental health problems.1 Since the Burdekin Report of 1989 first put the issue on the national agenda, youth homelessness has been a point of some political sensitivity as the numbers of young homeless stayed stubbornly high through the 1990s and into the 2000s.

UCPR 229 - defamation proceedings – damages to be assessed – application to interrogate as to defendant’s motive - implications of Defamation ACT 2005 - application to interrogate before action - when in the interests of justice

In Hogan v Ellery [2009] QDC 154 McGill DCJ considered two applications for leave to deliver interrogatories under r 229 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR). The judgment provides useful analysis of the circumstances in which a plaintiff may obtain leave to deliver interrogatories to a defendant in defamation proceedings, and also to a non-party before action.

Modes of criminal justice, indigenous youth and social democracy

The political question of how the will of a community is to be democratically formed and adhered to, the question of social democracy, is normatively tied to the mode of criminal justice employed within that democratic public sphere. Liberal, republican, procedural and communitarian forms of democratic will-formation respectively reflect retributive,restorative, procedural and co-operative modes of criminal justice. After first elaborating these links through the critical response of republican and procedural theories of democracy to the liberal practice of democratic will-formation and its retributive mode of justice, our discussion considers the recent practice of restorative and procedural justice with respect to Indigenous youth; and this in the context of a severely diminished role for Indigenous justice agencies in the public sphere. In light of certain shortcomings in both the restorative and procedural modes of justice, and so too with republican and procedural understandings of the democratic public sphere, we turn to a discussion of procedural communitarianism, anchored as it is in Dewey’s notion of social co-operation. From here we attempt a brief formulation of what a socially co-operative mode of justice might consist of; a mode of justice where historically racial and economically coercive injustices are sufficiently recognised.

Examining the effectiveness of Police-Citizens Youth Clubs on crime prevention and community safety

PCYCs, individually and as a whole, are highly valued in communities across Queensland. Participants in this evaluation identified numerous benefits of PCYCs, including: providing structured low-cost activities for young people and other community groups; developing positive relationships and trust between young people and police; developing young people into effective citizens; providing a safe place for young people and a hub for whole communities; addressing disadvantages faced by young people; and fostering social inclusion. Depending on the particular activities and programs delivered by a branch, PCYCs have the capacity to minimise risk factors and enhance protective factors relating to young people’s involvement in crime. For example, PCYCs can play an important role in strengthening young people’s engagement with education and family. However, the crime prevention and community safety aims of PCYCs, and measures that might work towards these aims are not widely- or well-understood, or appreciated, by those working in and with PCYCs. The key recommendation of this evaluation is therefore that the crime prevention and community safety aims of PCYCs in Queensland need to be better articulated, understood and reflected in the practice of those working in and with PCYCs. A related key finding is that many of the activities and programs currently provided by PCYCs could be better oriented towards the goals of crime prevention and community safety without major resource implications.