Mandatory offers under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - with interest please!

In Windon v Edwards [2005] QDC 029 Robin QC DCJ considered the cost consequence of mandatory final offers under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld)

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - reasonable excuse for delay in giving notice under s37

The decisions in Perdis v The Nominal Defendant [2003] QCA 555, Miller v the Nominal Defendant [2003] QCA 558 and Piper v the Nominal Defendant [2003] QCA 557 were handed down contemporaneously by the Queensland Court of Appeal on December 15 2003. They consider important issues as to the construction of key provisions of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld)

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - compulsory conferences and offers to settle

In Lindsay v Aumaali [2004] QDC 028 the Court considered whether it could, in effect, postpone the requirement for a compulsory conference under s51A of the Moror Accident insurance Act 1994 (Qld) or the exchange of final offers under s51C of the Act until after the start of proceedings.

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.

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.

Pitkin County Land Exchange Act of 2005 : report (to accompany H.R. 1129) (including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office).

"October 25, 2005."

Pitkin County Land Exchange Act of 2006 : report (to accompany H.R. 1129).

"April 20, 2006."

The Civil and professional engineers' act; the land surveyors' act; administrative rules

Title varies slightly

Waiver of statutory requirements : Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld)

One of the many difficulties associated with the drafting of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) (‘the Act’) is the operation of s 365. If the requirements imposed by this section concerning the return of the executed contract are not complied with, the buyer and the seller will not be bound by the relevant contract and the cooling-off period will not commence. In these circumstances, it is clear that a buyer’s offer may be withdrawn. However, the drafting of the Act creates a difficulty in that the ability of the seller to withdraw from the transaction prior to the parties being bound by the contract is not expressly provided by s 365. On one view, if the buyer is able to withdraw an offer at any time before receiving the prescribed contract documentation the seller also should not be bound by the contract until this time, notwithstanding that the seller may have been bound at common law. However, an alternative analysis is that the legislative omission to provide the seller with a right of withdrawal may be deliberate given the statutory focus on buyer protection. If this analysis were correct the seller would be denied the right to withdraw from the transaction after the contract was formed at common law (that is, after the seller had signed and the fact of signing had been communicated to the buyer).

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.