Amendments to the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld)

Wholesale amendments to the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) were recently introduced with the passing of the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2005 (Qld). The amendments were preceded by an extensive review of issues associated with the operation of the freehold land register and consultation with a number of stakeholders. The three articles that follow address different issues associated with these statutory amendments. The first article provides a brief overview of the amendments. The second article deals with particular amendments designed to combat mortgage fraud. In the third article, the question posed is whether further statutory amendment could better protect unregistered interests.

Second Caveats and the Land Title Act 1994

This article analyses the key features of s129 of the Land Title Act 1994 with reference to pre-existing Queensland law, and relevant case law on comparable provisions in Australia and New Zealand. Its aim is to provide a practical guide on the circumstances in which the provision will apply, and the considerations likely to be weighted by the Court in determining whether to grant leave to lodge a second caveat.

"Improper" caveats and compensation - section 130 of the Land Title Act 1994

This article examines some questions of statutory interpretation as they apply to section 130 of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld)

Electronic conveyancing in Australia: Is anyone concerned about security?

Three proof requirements as essential for a sustainable land registration system. These were proof of identity, proof of ownership, and authority to deal. Our attention in this paper is drawn to the latter two requirements and will ask whether the introduction of the Property Exchange of Australia (PEXA), and its underpinning regulatory regime will meet the concerns that we have in relation to proof of ownership and authority to deal. In drawing out some problems with PEXA, we then offer an innovative idea, sourced from the transfer of equities that could serve to generate discussion on how we can ensure the Torrens system of land registration is sustainable for another 160 years.

The susceptibility of digital signatures to fraud in the National Electronic Conveyancing System : an analysis

Public key cryptography, and with it,the ability to compute digital signatures, have made it possible for electronic commerce to flourish. It is thus unsurprising that the proposed Australian NECS will also utilise digital signatures in its system so as to provide a fully automated process from the creation of electronic land title instrument to the digital signing, and electronic lodgment of these instruments. This necessitates an analysis of the fraud risks raised by the usage of digital signatures because a compromise of the integrity of digital signatures will lead to a compromise of the Torrens system itself. This article will show that digital signatures may in fact offer greater security against fraud than handwritten signatures; but to achieve this, digital signatures require an infrastructure whereby each component is properly implemented and managed.

The impact of property title type on residential property returns

Residential property in New Zealand comprises both freestanding residential properties and medium to high density residential properties. Medium to high density residential property comprises the typical units, townhouses and semi-detached houses common in most residential property markets. However, in many of the larger cities of New Zealand the free standing residential property market has evolved into two separate markets being freehold residential property and cross lease residential property. Cross leases have developed as a form of infill housing to reduce the urban sprawl in major canters, while reducing the time and cost for residential property developers. A cross lease is created when an existing freestanding residential property subdivides a portion of the existing land for the erection of another house on the original title, basically dividing one larger residential section into two smaller residential blocks. This paper will analyse house prices in Christchurch over the period 1992 to 2006 to determine if the various housing markets have shown similar capital returns or if there is a specific preference for a particular residential property title.

Equitable mortgage by deposit of a Certificate of Title

In Theodore v Mistford Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 45, the High Court considered certain principles governing the creation of an equitable mortgage by the deposit of a title deed as first developed by the English courts of equity with respect to old system conveyancing. The decision will be of interest to Queensland practitioners as it concerned the application of these equitable principles to Torrens land regulated by the provisions of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) and, in particular, the operation of s 75 of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) which provides: (i) An equitable mortgage of a lot may be created by leaving a certificate of title with the mortgagee (ii) Subsection (1) does not affect the ways in which an equitable mortgage may be created.

Regulation of land access for resource development: A coal seam gas case study from Queensland

A number of regulatory statutes provide for agreements with landowners which are given extended effect, that is, are binding upon the landowner’s successors (‘statutory agreements’). Several Queensland statutes require a project proponent to enter into a statutory agreement with a landowner before a resource development activity can be carried out on private land or by accessing private land. Provisions of Queensland’s Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004 make certain types of statutory agreements binding upon successors and assigns of the landowner, but do not clearly prescribe the nature and contents of an agreement, nor require that the agreement be recorded on the land title or petroleum register. If statutory agreements are to be used for such purposes, their purpose and content should be more clearly defined by statute and they should be recorded on a searchable register.

Australia and Forest Carbon Partnerships : Indigenous Land Rights

One of the ways in which indigenous communities seek justice is through the formal recognition of their sovereign rights to land. Such recognition allows indigenous groups to maintain a physical and spiritual connection with their land and continue customary management of their land. Indigenous groups world over face significant hurdles in getting their customary rights to land recognized by legal systems. One of the main difficulties for indigenous groups in claiming customary land rights is the existence of a range of conflicting legal entitlements attaching to the land in question. In Australia, similar to New Zealand and Canada legal recognition to customary land is recognized through a grant of native title rights or through the establishment of land use agreement. In other jurisdictions such as Indonesia and Papua New Guinea a form of customary land title has been preserved and is recognized by the legal system. The implementation of REDD+ and other forms of forest carbon investment activities compounds the already complex arrangements surrounding legal recognition of customary land rights. Free, prior and informed consent of indigenous groups is essential for forest carbon investment on customary land. The attainment of such consent in practice remains challenging due to the number of conflicting interests often associated with forested land. This paper examines Australia’s experience in recongising indigenous land rights under its International Forest Carbon Initiative and under its domestic Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act (Australia) 2011. Australia’s International Forest Carbon initiative has a budget of $273 million dollars. In 2008 the governments of Australia and Indonesia signed the Indonesia-Australia Forest Carbon Partnership Agreement. This paper will examine the indigenous land tenure and justice lessons learned from the implementation of the Kalimantan Forest and Climate Partnership (KFCP). The KFCP is $30 million dollar project taking place over 120,000 hectares of degraded and forested peatland in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. The KFCP project site contains seven villages of the Dayak Ngdu indigenous people. In 2011 Australia established a domestic Forest Carbon Initiative, which seeks to provide new economic opportunities for farmers, forest growers and indigenous landholders while helping the environmental by reducing carbon pollution. This paper will explore the manner in which indigenous people are able to participate within these scheme noting the limits and opportunities in deriving co-benefits for indigenous people in Australia under this scheme.

Electronic conveyancing in Australia : is anyone concerned about security?

We have previously suggested that three proof requirements are essential for a sustainable land registration system. These were proof of identity, proof of ownership and authority to deal. Our attention in this article is drawn to the security framework that surrounds these requirements. We will ask whether the introduction of the Property Exchange of Australia (PEXA), and its underpinning regulatory regime will meet the concerns that we have in relation to them. In drawing out some problems with PEXA, we then offer an innovative idea, sourced from the transfer of equities that could serve to generate discussion on how we can ensure the Torrens system of land registration is sustainable for another 160 years. We also canvass some more incremental suggestions that evolve out of what we currently do, as well as outlining some comparative externally sourced ideas as to how the transfer and ownership of land can be made safer for all citizens. Such a goal is imperative when land transfer and secure property ownership is a critical component of the economic infrastructure of a modern society.

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.

An integrated information management model for ecologically sustainable development

Ecologically sustainable development has become a major feature of legal systems at the international, national and local levels throughout the world. In Australia, governments have responded to environmental crises by enacting legislation imposing obligations and restrictions over privately-owned land. Whilst these obligations and restrictions may well be necessary to achieve sustainability, the approach to management of information concerning these instruments is problematic. For example, management of information concerning obligations and restrictions in Queensland is fragmented, with some instruments registered or recorded on the land title register, some on external registers, and some information only available in the legislation itself. This approach is used in most Australian jurisdictions. This fragmented approach has led to two separate but interconnected problems. First, the Torrens system is no longer meeting its goal of providing a complete and accurate picture of title. Second, this uncoordinated approach to the management of land titles, and obligations and restrictions on land use, has created a barrier to sustainable management of natural resources. This is because compliance with environmental laws is impaired in the absence of easily accessible and accurate information. These problems demonstrate a clear need for reform in this area. To determine how information concerning these obligations and restrictions may be most effectively managed, this thesis will apply a comparative methodology and consider three case studies, which each utilise different models for management of this information. These jurisdictions will be assessed according to a set of guidelines for comparison to identify which features of their systems provide for effective management of information concerning obligations and restrictions on title and use. Based on this comparison, this thesis will devise a series of recommendations for an effective system for the management of information concerning obligations and restrictions on land title and use, taking into account any potential legal issues and barriers to implementation. This series of recommendations for reform will be supplemented by suggested draft legislative provisions.

Getting more than the judgment debtor can give?

Prior to the decision of the High Court in Black v Garnock (2007) 230 CLR 438 it was an established principle in Queensland that a judgment creditor acting under an enforcement warrant could take no interest beyond what the judgment debtor could give. However, the decision of the High Court called this principle into question. This article examines the current position in the context of s 120 of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) , Queensland Titles Office practice and standard contractual provisions. This examination is further informed by the recent decision of Martin J in Secure Funding Pty Ltd v Doneley [2010] QSC 91.

The requirement to 'Start a Proceeding' to prevent the lapse of a caveat

Section 126 of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) regulates whether, and if so, when a caveat will lapse. While certain caveats will not lapse due to the operation of s 126(1), if a caveator does not wish a caveat to which the section applies to lapse, the caveator must start a proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction to establish the interest claimed under the caveat within the time limits specified in, and otherwise comply with the obligations imposed by, s 126(4). The requirement, in s 126(4), to “start a proceeding” was the subject of judicial examination by the Court of Appeal (McMurdo P, Holmes JA and MacKenzie J) in Cousins Securities Pty Ltd v CEC Group Ltd [2007] QCA 192.

State of Origin : Queensland Crown Leasehold - lessons from New South Wales

Throughout Australia freehold land interests are protected by statutory schemes which grant indefeasibility of title to registered interests. Queensland freehold land interests are protected by Torrens system established by the Land Title Act 1994. However, no such protection exists for Crown land interests. The extent of Queensland occupied under some form of Crown tenure, in excess of 70%, means that Queensland Crown land users are disadvantaged when compared to freehold land users. This article examines the role indefeasibility of title has in protecting interests in Crown land. A comparative analysis is undertaken between Queensland and New South Wales land management frameworks to determine whether interests in crown land are adequately protected in Queensland.