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...

Property law and practice in Queensland : being a commentary on the Property Law Act 1974

A Commentary on the Property Law Act 1974 Queensland

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

Analysing the Prospects of a Successful Application Under s 180 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld)

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. In recent years, the Queensland courts have been confronted with a number of such applications. Litigation has also been common in New South Wales which has a statutory provision in largely similar terms. This article seeks to identify those factors that have underpinned successful applications, the obstacles that an applicant may encounter and the considerations that have guided the courts when considering the associated issues of compensation and costs.

When can a tenancy be terminated under s 129 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld)?

This article reviews the nature and purpose of s 129 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) whose application has given rise to some confusion in the past, particularly where the lessee against whom it is being used is also in breach of the lease at the time of receiving the notice. The article explores the historical origins of the section, firstly in New South Wales where it was enacted in 1930, and attempts to outline modern circumstances where it may be applied or particularly applied in Queensland.

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.

Property law reforms in Queensland: Is the regulatory burden on land transactions reduced?

The reduction of unnecessary regulation was a clear policy objective of the Queensland government during 2014. In the area of property sales significant reforms were introduced from 1 December 2014. This article examines the key aspects of these reforms and whether there has been a reduction in red tape for sellers and buyers of land.

Building an understanding of law: Engaging property economics students by using technology

It is assumed university students engage with technology as easily for their university studies as they do socially. However, prior research reflects the difficulties that non-law students face in engaging with legal materials. The purpose of this research was to determine how technology use impacts upon non-law students’ engagement with legal materials. The project explored inter alia the extent to which first year non-law students engaged with technology for their studies and in particular with legal materials and databases. The project was undertaken during semester 2, 2014 in a legal service unit delivered to a mixed cohort, which included construction management, property economics, planning and quantity surveying students. Actual technology use and familiarity was tested by means of an in class survey delivered in the Week 2 lecture. Use and familiarity was then retested at the end of semester in the Week 13 lecture, with adjustments made in lecture delivery and materials in-between.

Intellectual property and joint ventures

This chapter outlines the most important ways in which intellectual property is protected in Australia, and also the factors which affect the rights of joint venture participants in the absence of specific agreement between such participants. It then examines particular issues which may be considered in preparing appropriate documentation for any joint venture which involves the utilisation or generation of intellectual property to ensure that the joint venture participants achieve their desired result in terms of the allocation of ownership and control of such rights. The analysis includes and explanation of the special considerations which affect co-operation in research between industry and a university or government research institution. Finally, the rights of the joint venturers to intellectual property upon termination of the joint ventures are considered.

Use of Property Rights Registers for sustainability : a Queensland Case Study

Sustainable natural resource management has been a concern of governments and legislators for the last 20 years. A key aspect of an effective management framework is easy access to information about rights and obligations in land and the natural resources in, on or below the land. Information about legal interests in land is managed through a Torrens register in each Australian State. These registers are primarily focused on the registration of a narrow group of legal interests in the land, and rights or obligations that fall outside of these recognised interests are not capable of registration. Practices have developed however for the recording of property rights in natural resources either on separate registers, with no link to the Torrens register or on a separate register managed by the Registrar of Titles but having no legal effect on the title to the land. This paper will discuss and analyse the various ways in which registers have been used in Queensland to provide access to information about rights in natural resources, and provide examples as to how this approach has impacted on the desire for sustainable management. It will also provide a critique of the Queensland model, and call for reform of the present system.

Behavioural biases and information disclosure laws relating to residential property sales : narrowing the gap between existing laws and calls for future reforms

Market failures involving the sale of complex merchandise, such as residential property, financial products and credit, have principally been attributed to information asymmetries. Existing legislative and regulatory responses were developed having regard to consumer protection policies based on traditional economic theories that focus on the notion of the ‘rational consumer’. Governmental responses therefore seek to impose disclosure obligations on sellers of complex goods or products to ensure that consumers have sufficient information upon which to make a decision. Emergent research, based on behavioural economics, challenges traditional ideas and instead focuses on the actual behaviour of consumers. This approach suggests that consumers as a whole do not necessarily benefit from mandatory disclosure because some, if not most, consumers do not pay attention to the disclosed information before they make a decision to purchase. The need for consumer policies to take consumer characteristics and behaviour into account is being increasingly recognised by governments, and most recently in the policy framework suggested by the Australian Productivity Commission

Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act : strike three

The Tourism, Racing and Fair Trading (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2002 (“the Act”) which was passed on 18 April 2002 contains a number of significant amendments relevant to the operation of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000. The main changes relevant to property transactions are: (i) Changes to the process for appointment of a real estate agent and consolidation of the appointment forms; (ii) Additions to the disclosure obligation of agents and property developers; (iii) Simplification of the process for commencing the cooling off period; (iv) Alteration of the common law position concerning when the parties are bound by a contract; (v) Removal of the requirement for a seller’s signature on the warning statement to be witnessed; (vi) Retrospective amendment of s 170 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997; (vii) Inclusion of a new power to allow inspectors to enter the place of business of a licensee or a marketeer without consent and without a warrant; and (viii) Inclusion of a new power for inspectors to require documents to be produced by marketeers. The majority of the amendments are effective from the date of assent, 24 April 2002, however, some of the amendments do not commence until a date fixed by proclamation. No proclamation has been made at the time of writing (2 May 2002). Where the amendments have not commenced this will be noted in the article. Before providing clients with advice, practitioners should carefully check proclamation details.

Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act : take two

The Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 commenced on 1 July 2001. Significant changes have now been made to the Act by the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Amendment Act 2001 (“the amending Act”). The amending Act contains two distinct parts. First, ss 11-19 of the amending Act provide for increased disclosure obligations on real estate agents, property developers and lawyers together with an extension of the 5 business day cooling-off period imposed by the original Act to all residential property (other than contracts formed on a sale by auction). These provisions commenced on 29 October 2001. The remaining provisions of the amending Act provide for increased jurisdiction and powers to the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) enabling the Tribunal to deal with claims against marketeers. These provisions commenced on the date of assent, 21 September 2001.

Causing economic harm to property developers : damages for starting an incurably bad appeal?

A recent decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal involved an unusual statement of claim made on behalf of the developer of a proposed resort in Port Douglas. The decision is The Beach Club Port Douglas Pty Ltd v Page [2005] QCA 475. The issue The defendant had objected to a development application of the plaintiff developer and lodged an appeal in the Planning and Environment Court against the council decision granting a development permit. The main issue in the Planning and Environment Court was whether the site coverage of the proposed resort was excessive. In a separate action (the subject matter of the present appeal), the plaintiff developer claimed damages for ‘negligence’ alleging that the defendant had breached a duty of care not to appeal without properly or reasonably assessing whether the development qualified for a permit given that the resort qualified for the maximum allowable site coverage. It was alleged that the appeal lodged by the defendant in the Planning and Environment Court had no reasonable prospects of success and that any reasonable person properly advised would know, or ought reasonably to have known, that to be so. The defendant had been “put on notice” that the plaintiff would incur loss of $10,000 for every day there was a delay in starting construction of the resort. The claim made by the developer required the court to consider those circumstances where a person may lawfully and deliberately cause economic harm to another. Was a duty of care owed by the defendant for negligent conduct of litigation that caused economic loss to the plaintiff?