Can compensation be claimed under the standard commercial land and building contract where the property sold has no legally enforceable vehicular access?

This was the question that confronted Wilson J in Jarema Pty Ltd v Michihiko Kato [2004] QSC 451. Facts The plaintiff was the buyer of a commercial property at Bundall. The property comprised a 6 storey office building with a basement car park with 54 car parking spaces. The property was sold for $5 million with the contract being the standard REIQ/QLS form for Commercial Land and Buildings (2nd ed GST reprint). The contract provided for a “due diligence” period. During this period, the buyer’s solicitors discovered that there was no direct access from a public road to the car park entrance. Access to the car park was over a lot of which the Gold Coast City Council was the registered owner under a nomination of trustees, the Council holding the property on trust for car parking and town planning purposes. Due to the absence of a registered easement over the Council’s land, the buyer’s solicitors sought a reduction in the purchase price. The seller would not agree to this. Finally the sale was completed with the buyer reserving its rights to seek compensation.

A superannuation fund as a buyer?

In Bennett v Stewart McMurdo J considered the operation of a contract where the buyer was described as a superannuation fund. The Bennetts signed a standard REIQ contract as buyers of the Stewarts’ house and land. However, the reference schedule to the contract document contained these words next to the word ‘buyer’: ‘Bennett Superannuation Fund’ The Bennetts wished to enforce the contract. In response, the Stewarts (the sellers) raised two issues: • As the ‘Bennett Superannuation Fund’ was a trust and not a distinct legal entity capable of making a contract, the contract did not specify who was the buyer, so that the contract was void for uncertainty; and • The contract was unenforceable as there was no sufficient note or memorandum for the purposes of s 59 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) as s 59 requires, amongst other things, an identification of the parties. McMurdo J did not accept either of these arguments and made an order for specific performance in favour of the Bennetts. Looking at each issue separately:

Equitable remedies for elder financial abuse in inter vivos transactions

Elder law is a growing area of legal practice due to the increasing numbers and proportions of older people in Australian society. The older generation has greater access to financial resources by way of retirement capital than ever before. Coupled with the current generation’s high level of debt and an increasing dependence on inheritances to meet these debts, this has created an environment in which the potential for elder financial abuse is increasing. This article examines how equitable remedies can be used as an avenue of redress for elder financial abuse. The effectiveness of these remedies, and in particular the prospect of a costs order being awarded against the perpetrator of the abuse in successful claims, may act as a deterrent and assist in preventing elder financial abuse from occurring.

Identity fraud and land registration systems : an Australian perspective

There is no doubt that fraud in relation to land transactions is a problem that resonates amongst land academics, practitioners, and stakeholders involved in conveyancing. As each land registration and conveyancing process increasingly moves towards a fully electronic environment, we need to make sure that we understand and guard against the frauds that can occur. What this paper does is examine the types of fraud that have occurred in paper-based conveyancing systems in Australia and considers how they might be undertaken in the National Electronic Conveyancing System (NECS) that is currently under development. Whilst no system can ever be infallible, it is suggested that by correctly imposing the responsibility for identity verification on the appropriate individual, the conveyancing system adopted can achieve the optimum level of fairness in terms of allocation of responsibility and loss. As we sit on the cusp of a new era of electronic conveyancing, the framework suggested here provides a model for minimising the risks of forged mortgages and appropriately allocating the loss. Importantly it also recognises that the electronic environment will see new opportunities for those with criminal intent to undermine the integrity of land transactions. An appreciation of this now, can see the appropriate measures put in place to minimise the risk.

Loss of chance in medical negligence claims now a lost cause?

The question whether the loss of chance of a better medical outcome in cases of medical negligence should be recognised as actionable damage is ‘a question which has divided courts and commentators throughout the common law world.’ In April 2010, the High Court handed down its anticipated decision in the case of Tabet (by her Tutor Sheiban) v Gett (2010) 240 CLR 537. The issue considered by the court was whether the appellant could claim in negligence for the loss of a chance of a better medical outcome. This issue had not been considered by the High Court previously, the most relevant cases being Rufo v Hosking (2004) 61 NSWLR 678 and Gavalas v Singh (2001) 3 VLR 404. Claiming for a loss of chance in a personal injury action raises questions as to recognised damage and causation, and the members of the High Court considered both of these.

Civil Liability and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2010 (Qld)

On 17 March 2010, the Civil Liability and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2010 (Qld) was assented to.

Intent behind payments determines impact on assessment of damages

In Zheng v Cai (2009) 261 ALR 481 the High Court had to determine whether voluntary payments made to the appellant by a third party were to be taken into account when assessing a claim for damages for personal injury.

Assessment of damages for property damage

In Gagner Pty t/as Indochine Café v Canturi Corporation Pty Ltd (2009) 262 ALR 691, the assessment of damages awarded for the rectification work to the premises of the respondent was in issue. The appellant operated a restaurant above the respondent’s jewellery store in Sydney. When the kitchen of the restaurant flooded, water escaped causing damage to the jewellery store’s fit-out. The escape of the water was held to be due to the negligence of persons for whom the appellant was vicariously liable. The trial judge awarded damages, measured by the amount required to return the premises as close as was possible to the condition prior to the flood damage as well as an allowance for interruption to the business for 10 days. The 10 day allowance reflected the number of days the store would have been closed for if it was to be returned to its previous condition. The evidence was that the flooding has only affected approximately 10% of the floor area of the store. However, instead of having work carried out to bring the premises back to its condition as before the water damage, the respondent closed the business for 29 working days for a complete internal refurbishment – at a cost substantially more than simple rectification. On appeal it was argued that the trial judge had assessed the damages incorrectly as by undertaking a complete refurbishment had the effect that the respondent did not suffer any loss as a consequence of the negligence in relation to the fit-out. It was asserted that the claim for damages was in the circumstances a claim for betterment. It was also argued that the damages should not include a component for GST. Campbell JA gave reasons, with Macfarlan JA and Sackville AJA agreeing.

Uncetainty in claiming damages for defects in property

In Project Management Company No 2 Pty Ltd v Cushway Blackford & Associates Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 102 the appellant sought leave to join its parent company party (Project Management Company No 1) as a plaintiff to the proceedings and to amend its statement of claim. It was argued that the parent company had suffered the loss claimed in the proceedings, rather than the appellant. Rule 69(1)(b)(ii) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) allows a court at any stage of the proceeding to order that ‘a person whose presence before the court would be desirable, just and convenient to enable the court to adjudicate effectually and completely on all matters in dispute connected with the proceeding’ be include as a party. To determine this issue, the Court of Appeal had to review the law relevant to the proceedings – a claim in negligence for pure economic loss, in particular, the principles espoused by the High Court in Bryan v Maloney(1995) 182 CLR 609 and Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd (2004) 216 CLR 515.

The defence of joint illegal activity must be looked at in context

In Miller v Miller (2011) 85 ALJR 480; [2011] HCA 9 the High Court examined the complex issue of joint illegal activity. The issue before the court was whether a plaintiff who had engaged in an illegal activity with the defendant may claim damages in negligence. In its decision the court analysed the cases of Henwood v Municipal Tramways Trust (SA) (1938) 60 CLR 438, Smith v Jenkins (1970) 119 CLR 397, Jackson v Harrison (1978) 138 CLR 438 and Gala v Preston (1991) 172 CLR 243.

The Commercial Surrogacy Dilemma

In November 2009 the England and Wales High Court (Family Division) granted a parental order pursuant to s30 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 in respect of twins who came to be in the custody and control of the applicants (Mr and Mrs A) through a surrogacy arrangement. The particularly unusual and interesting aspect of this case is that, on the evidence, Mr and Mrs A had paid expenses to the surrogate above and beyond those allowed by the legislation, thus creating a commercial surrogacy arrangement. Commercial surrogacy arrangements involve the payment of money to the surrogate mother in excess of those expenses which have been reasonably incurred pursuant to the surrogacy arrangement. This case is relevant to Queensland law because commercial surrogacy arrangements are also prohibited in Queensland and, as in the United Kingdom, the court cannot make a parentage order unless it is satisfied the surrogacy arrangement is not a commercial surrogacy arrangement.

Surrogacy - A Path of Obstacles

Surrogacy has become an effective and accepted form of reproductive technology. It enables couples, regardless of gender or sexuality, to achieve the dream of becoming a parent in circumstances where other forms of reproductive technology and adoption are either not possible or have failed. To its credit, the Queensland parliament has recently brought this state up to date by enacting surrogacy laws that are in line with the majority of statutes implemented throughout the country. The Surrogacy Act 2010 (Qld) allows for the court to make a parentage order in certain circumstances where parties have entered into a surrogacy arrangement. A parentage order effectively transfers parental rights from the birth mother (and her spouse or de facto if there is one) to the intended parents. The requirements which must be satisfied to obtain a parenting order are comprehensive and onerous, making the path to parenthood through a surrogacy arrangement by no means easy. At the heart of the surrogacy issue lies a question, the answer to which has shifted and continues to shift as reproductive technologies continue to increase in success, method and popularity - what is a parent? A recent decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Hudson v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, brought to attention the meaning of the word ‘parent’ as it appears in s 16(2) Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (‘the Act’). Section 16(2) deals with citizenship by descent and provides that a person born outside Australia may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen if a parent of the person was an Australian citizen at the time of the birth.