Compensation for compulsory acquisition of a licensed car parking space

The Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (Qld) (‘the Act’) deals with the acquisition of land by the State for public purposes and provides for compensation. The issue that arose for determination in Sorrento Medical Service Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Dept of Main Roads [2007] QCA 73 was whether the appellant was entitled to claim compensation under the Act in respect of land resumed by the Main Roads Department over which the appellant had an exclusive contractual licence for car parking spaces for use in association with a medical centre leased by the appellant. At first instance, it was held by the Land Court that the appellant was not entitled to compensation for the resumption of the car parking spaces. The basis for this decision by the Land Court was that a right to compensation only exists where resumption has taken some proprietary interest of the claimant in the land. Following an appeal to the Land Appeal Court being dismissed, the appellant instituted the present appeal to the Queensland Court of Appeal (McMurdo P, Holmes JA and Chesterman J).

Cranes, claims and a statutory right of user

In larger developments there is potential for construction cranes to encroach into the airspace of neighbouring properties. To resolve issues of this nature, a statutory right of user may be sought under s 180 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld). Section 180 allows the court to impose a statutory right of user on servient land where it is reasonably necessary in the interests of effective use in any reasonable manner of the dominant land. Such an order will not be made unless the court is satisfied that it is consistent with public interest, the owner of the servient land can be adequately recompensed for any loss or disadvantage which may be suffered from the imposition and the owner of the servient land has refused unreasonably to agree to accept the imposition of that obligation. In applying the statutory provision, a key practical concern for legal advisers will be the basis for assessment of compensation. A recent decision of the Queensland Supreme Court (Douglas J) provides guidance concerning matters relevant to this assessment. The decision is Lang Parade Pty Ltd v Peluso [2005] QSC 112.

The impact of location on contribution schedule lot entitlements

Should the owner of a penthouse unit pay more in body corporate levies than the ground floor unit owner? A decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal (McPherson JA, Chesterman and Atkinson JJ) will be of great interest to those seeking to challenge contribution schedule lot entitlements imposed under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (‘the Act’). The decision is Fischer v Body Corporate for Centrepoint Community Title Scheme 7779 [2004] QCA 214.

Encroachment: what cost a pool with ocean views?

In Shadbolt v Wise [2002] QSC 348 the applicants were seeking relief under s184 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) in respect of an encroachment that they constructed on land belonging to the adjacent owner. The encroachment in question consisted of slightly less than one half of an elaborate pool and pool enclosure (the area of the encroachment being approximately 108 square metres). The land upon which the encroachment was situated was elevated with distant ocean views.

Joinder to a later unsigned document?

It is well known that a statutory requirement of formality is associated with contracts concerning land. In this regard, s 59 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) provides: No action may be brought upon any contract for the sale or other disposition of land or any interest in land unless the contract upon which such action is brought, or some memorandum or note of the contract, is in writing, and signed by the party to be charged, or by some person by the party lawfully authorised. In addition to the possibility of a formal contract, the statutory wording clearly contemplates reliance on an informal note or memorandum. To constitute a sufficient note or memorandum for the purposes of the statute, the signed note or memorandum must contain details of the parties to the contract, an adequate description of the property, the price and any other essential terms. It is also accepted that the doctrine of joinder may be invoked in circumstances where the document signed by the party to be charged contains an express or implied reference to any other document. In this way, a sufficient note or memorandum may be constituted by the joinder of a number of documents.

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:

Legal Profession Act 2007 s 319 - Whether costs agreement made after trial valid and enforceable - whether agreement had retrospective operation

The decision in QCOAL Pty Ltd v Cliffs Australia Coal Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 479 involved an examination of a number of issues relating to the assessment of costs under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). The decision highlights a range of issues which, in slightly different circumstances, may have deprived the successful party of the right to recover costs by reference to the costs agreement.

Practice and procedure : a recent Court of Appeal case examines the meaning of 'third party payer' in terms of Part 3.4 of the Legal Profession Act 2007.

In Legal Services Commissioner v Wright [2010] QCA 321 the Queensland Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from the first instance decision. The decision involved the construction of “third party payer” in Part 3.4 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld).

Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, s 32 - Duty to Disclose - consequences of non-disclosure - discretion to excuse non-compliance

In Newson v Aust Scan Pty Ltd t/a Ikea Springwood [2010] QSC 223 the Supreme Court examined the discretion under s 32(2) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), to permit a document which has not been disclosed as required by the pre-court procedures under the PIPA to be used in a subsequent court proceeding. This appears to be the first time that the nature and parameters of the discretion have been judicially considered.

District Court of Queensland Act 1968 s 68 : jurisdiction in pre-proceedings applications under Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002

In Woolworths Ltd v Graham [2007] QDC 301 Searles DCJ struck out a pre-proceedings application under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld)on the basis that the material before the Court was not sufficient to attract the jurisdiction of the District Court.The decision serves more broadly as a reminder that the District Court is an inferior court of defined and limited jurisdiction and that any proceedings brought in it must be demonstrably within the jurisdiction conferred on that court by legislation.

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 compatibility of leasehold and freehold tenure arrangements with environmental offset and trading initiatives

Environmental offsets and environmental trading initiatives are being rapidly introduced into environmental regulatory regimes. These relatively new legal mechanisms are attempting to fill in the gaps left by command and control regulation. The introduction of environmental offset and trading policy in Queensland will need to be compatible with existing land tenure regulation. Who owns and who uses natural resources are controlled by a range of legislative reservations and restrictions. Reservations give the State ownership of certain natural resources such as minerals, quarry material and, in some circumstances, forest products. Where there is a reservation in operation, the land holders rights are weakened. Restrictions in relation to uses prevent land holders from carrying out certain activities on the land. An example of a restriction of use is the operation of the Vegetation Management Act 1999(Qld), which prescribes the manner in which vegetation is to be dealt with. This article explores the nature of freehold and leasehold land tenure in Queensland and examines the effect of reservations and restrictions upon the operation of environmental offset and trading initiatives. Presently Queensland legislation does not directly address the relationship between land tenure and environmental offset and trading initiatives. The stability of tenure required for the creation of environmental offsets can be at odds with the flexibility allowed for under leasehold arrangements. This flexibility may act to undermine the permanency requirement of environmental offset creation (i.e. the guarantee that the offset is created for the long term).

Legal Profession Act 2007 : entitlement to itemised bill – meaning of “client” – meaning of “third party payer”

In Legal Services Commissioner and Wright [2010] QSC 168 and Amos v Ian K Fry & Company, the Supreme Court of Queensland considered the scope of some of the provisions of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), including the definition of “third party payer” in s 301 of the Act.

Arbitration proceeding – determination of “market price” – subpoena under Commercial Arbitration Act 1990 s 17

AGL Wholesale Gas Ltd v Origin Energy Ltd [2008] QCA 366 involved an appeal against the setting aside of paragraphs of a subpoena issued under s 17 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1990 (Qld). The Court was satisfied that even if the documents were of “apparent relevance” to the subject matter of the proceedings, it would nevertheless be oppressive to require their production.

Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) : costs agreement between law practice and client - whether binding on non-associated third party payer

The decision in the New South Wales Supreme Court in Boyce v McIntyre [2008] NSWSC 1218 involved determination of a number of issues relating to an assessment of costs under the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW). The issue of broad significance was whether a non-associated third party payer must pay the fixed fee that was agreed between the law practice and the client. The court found that the client agreement did not form the basis of assessing costs for the non-associated third party payer.