Who is selling the property?

For sale purposes, the question of who will be the registered owner of the property at completion is normally not difficult to answer. However, the decision in Rolls v Radford [2012] QSC 92 illustrates how things can go badly wrong...

Lifting the joint venture veil : liability of related entities for misleading conduct of agents engaged by joint venture partners

At common law, a corporation may be liable vicariously for the conduct of its appointed agents, employees or directors. This generally requires the agent or employee to be acting in the course of his or her agency or employment and, in the case of representations, to have actual or implied authority to make the representations. The circumstances in which a corporation may be liable for the conduct of its agents, employees or directors is broadened under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) to where one of these parties engages in conduct “on behalf of” the corporation. As the decision in Bennett v Elysium Noosa Pty Ltd (in liq) demonstrates, this may extend to liability for the misleading conduct of a salesperson for the joint venture to parties who are not formal members of the joint venture, but where the joint venture activities are within the course of the entity’s “business, affairs or activities”.

Assignment of lease between lessees as joint tenants-is lessor’s consent required?

The decision of Lockrey v Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales [2012] NSWSC 654 raises an interesting issue about the necessity of seeking the consent of the lessor where there is an assignment of a lease between joint tenants who already hold the lease when one joint tenant sells the business operated on the leased premises to the other joint tenant. A secondary issue raised by the proceedings concerns whether the lessor’s consent was unreasonably withheld under the processes under Retail Leases Act 1994 (NSW) (“the Act”) upon the grounds of lack of provision of information as to the remaining lessee’s financial standing.

Termites did not undermine sale

The New South Wales Court of Appeal decision of Wood v Balfour [2011] NSWCA 382 presents an interesting factual matrix relating to the obligation of a seller to disclose significant latent defects in quality of title to a buyer, in this instance, severe termite damage. It offers insights into the difficulty of a buyer proving the existence of the element of deceit in the making of a representation with respect to quality and reinforces the importance of the rule caveat emptor as being an article of faith for every buyer of real estate.

Seller compensated for loss caused through buyer’s misconduct

The decision of Roberts v Juniper [2012] QDC 140 relating to the obligation to rectify damage caused to property and pay mesne profits for use of a property occupied by a buyer under a contract of sale which was later terminated raises interesting points for consideration by property lawyers.

Adverse possession and Crown Leasehold in Queensland

The decision of Eckford v Stanbroke Pastoral Co Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 48 ,although a decision refusing summary judgement raises a very important question of the ability to claim adverse possession of a pastoral lease issued in 1956 under the Land Act 1962 (Queensland).Division 5 of Part 6 of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) which guarantees registered freehold title expressly deals with the right of adverse possession however, there is no such provision in the present Land Act 1994 unlike s 170 of the Crown Lands Act 1989(NSW) which expressly precludes claims for adverse possession of specified non freehold land. There is no mention of adverse possession in any version of the Queensland Land Acts and only s 6(4) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 makes it clear that “the right, title or interest of the Crown” in or to any land is not affected by any adverse possessor.It is against the background that the Court considered the right of an adverse possessor to a Crown lease.

The high price of hesitation where time of the essence

The decision of Lai v Soineva [2011] QSC 247 in relation to the operation of standard conditions in the Queensland REIQ contract highlights a very practical issue often overlooked in the heat of a transaction .The point is relatively simple. In this instance ,the case concerned the interpretation of the printed "Building and Pest Inspection Clause" but is of relevance to the printed "Finance Clause" in the same contract as the wording and principles are identical. It highlights the issue of knowing well what is in the standard contract and not making assumptions. The case also highlights the cost to a party of dithering in making an election in a time of the essence environment

Statutory right to rescind contract remained available to buyer subject to specific performance decree

The aftermath of the Queensland floods of January 2011 continues to be played out in the courts. The effect of the floods on such a large scale has awakened the use of some statutory provisions that have not previously been litigated .Section 64 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) is such a section. A version of this provision appears as s 34 of the Sale of Land Act 1982 (Vic). Broadly speaking, these sections permit a buyer of a dwelling house which has been damaged or destroyed between contract and completion to rescind the contract and recover their deposit provided that the rescission notice is given prior to "the date of completion or possession". The Court of Appeal decision of Dunworth v Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 200 appears to be the first litigation upon the application of the section since it came into force in 1975.

The legal effect of settlement statements

The decision of Carrapetta v. Rado [2012] NSWCA 202 raises a short but very practical point relating to the right to deliver a notice to complete or have otherwise called for completion where time is of the essence of the contract in circumstances where a settlement statement subsequently sent from the seller has overstated the amount owing under the contract. It was common ground , following the oft quoted High Court decisions of Neeta (Epping) Pty Ltd v Phillips(1974) 131 CLR 286 and Louinder v Leis (1982) 149 CLR 509 that a Notice to Complete which called for completion outside the terms of the contract would be invalid. These decisions also further confirm the long accepted principles that a seller who is not “ready willing and able” to perform all their obligations or who is otherwise in breach of contract at the time could not deliver a Notice to Complete (at[27]).The issue in this case did not so much concern the efficacy of the Notice to Complete at the time was delivered ,but the legal effect upon the Notice to Complete of the later delivery of a settlement statement for what the buyer considered to be performance beyond that required by the contract.

Cattanach v Melchior : babies, blessings and burdens

This article considers the High Court decision of Cattanach v Melchior, which permitted the recovery of damages for the cost of raising a child born through medical negligence. It discusses the reasoning in each of the judgments and seeks to identify themes so as to explain the divide between the majority and minority. It also considers the impact of legislative intervention in Queensland and New South Wales.

Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990–2010 : a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010

Background Non-fatal health outcomes from diseases and injuries are a crucial consideration in the promotion and monitoring of individual and population health. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) studies done in 1990 and 2000 have been the only studies to quantify non-fatal health outcomes across an exhaustive set of disorders at the global and regional level. Neither effort quantified uncertainty in prevalence or years lived with disability (YLDs). Methods Of the 291 diseases and injuries in the GBD cause list, 289 cause disability. For 1160 sequelae of the 289 diseases and injuries, we undertook a systematic analysis of prevalence, incidence, remission, duration, and excess mortality. Sources included published studies, case notification, population-based cancer registries, other disease registries, antenatal clinic serosurveillance, hospital discharge data, ambulatory care data, household surveys, other surveys, and cohort studies. For most sequelae, we used a Bayesian meta-regression method, DisMod-MR, designed to address key limitations in descriptive epidemiological data, including missing data, inconsistency, and large methodological variation between data sources. For some disorders, we used natural history models, geospatial models, back-calculation models (models calculating incidence from population mortality rates and case fatality), or registration completeness models (models adjusting for incomplete registration with health-system access and other covariates). Disability weights for 220 unique health states were used to capture the severity of health loss. YLDs by cause at age, sex, country, and year levels were adjusted for comorbidity with simulation methods. We included uncertainty estimates at all stages of the analysis. Findings Global prevalence for all ages combined in 2010 across the 1160 sequelae ranged from fewer than one case per 1 million people to 350 000 cases per 1 million people. Prevalence and severity of health loss were weakly correlated (correlation coefficient −0·37). In 2010, there were 777 million YLDs from all causes, up from 583 million in 1990. The main contributors to global YLDs were mental and behavioural disorders, musculoskeletal disorders, and diabetes or endocrine diseases. The leading specific causes of YLDs were much the same in 2010 as they were in 1990: low back pain, major depressive disorder, iron-deficiency anaemia, neck pain, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, anxiety disorders, migraine, diabetes, and falls. Age-specific prevalence of YLDs increased with age in all regions and has decreased slightly from 1990 to 2010. Regional patterns of the leading causes of YLDs were more similar compared with years of life lost due to premature mortality. Neglected tropical diseases, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and anaemia were important causes of YLDs in sub-Saharan Africa. Interpretation Rates of YLDs per 100 000 people have remained largely constant over time but rise steadily with age. Population growth and ageing have increased YLD numbers and crude rates over the past two decades. Prevalences of the most common causes of YLDs, such as mental and behavioural disorders and musculoskeletal disorders, have not decreased. Health systems will need to address the needs of the rising numbers of individuals with a range of disorders that largely cause disability but not mortality. Quantification of the burden of non-fatal health outcomes will be crucial to understand how well health systems are responding to these challenges. Effective and affordable strategies to deal with this rising burden are an urgent priority for health systems in most parts of the world. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

e-Technology v t-Engagement : a snapshot of Australia's digital economy readiness

Before e-Technology’s effects on users can be accurately measured, those users must be fully engaged with the relevant systems and services. That is they must be able to function as part of the digital economy. The paper refers to this ‘user functionality’ as t-Engagement. Not all users are t-Engaged and in many instances achieving t-Engagement will require assistance from external sources. This paper identifies the current state of Australia’s regional digital economy readiness and highlights the role of Local Government Authorities (‘LGAs’) in enabling t-Engagement. The paper analyses responses to the 2012 BTA, NBN and Digital Economy Survey by LGA and other regional organizations within Australia. The paper’s particular focus is on the level of use by Local Government Authorities of federal, state and other programs designed to enable t-Engagement. The analysis confirms the role of LGAs in enabling t-Engagement and in promoting Australia’s digital economy. The paper concludes by reinforcing the need to ensure ongoing meaningful federal and State support of regional initiatives, as well as identifying issues requiring specific attention.