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.

"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)

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.

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.

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.

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 caveat in Queensland : getting it off!

This article critically analyses the provisions by which a caveat against dealings may be cleared from a land title in Queensland, namely ss 126, 127 and 128 of the Land Title Act 1994(Qld). It includes a comparison of the current provisions with the pre-existing law and provides a comprehensive guide as to the circumstances in which, and the manner by which, the current provisions may be utilised to clear caveats from land titles in Queensland.

Compensation for logdment of caveat without reasonable cause

This article examines s130 of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) in detail, and includes an analysis of authorities which have interpreted comparable provisions in other Australian jurisdictions and in New Zealand. Its purpose is to provide a comprehensive guide as to the circumstances in which the court may now be expected to award compensation in respect of the lodgment or continuance of a caveat in Queensland. Finally, the author considers whether the changes which have been embodied in s130 may now be regarded as providing adequate protection for persons who suffer damage as a result of the lodgment or continuance of a caveat which cannot ultimately be sustained.

Compensation sought for an improper caveat

Re Brooks’ Caveat [2014] QSC 76 is a decision of Henry J delivered on 24 April 2014. The decision considers the operation of s 130 of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld). That section provides that a person who lodges or continues a caveat without reasonable cause must compensate anyone else who suffers loss or damage as a result...

Land Sales Act 1984: The time limit for an application for exemption

The decision of Wilson J in Wan and Ors v NPD Property Development Pty Ltd [2004] QSC 232 also concerned the operation of the Land Sales Act 1984 (Qld) (‘the Act’). As previously noted, s 8(1) of the Act provides that a proposed allotment of freehold land might be sold only in certain circumstances. An agreement made in contravention of s 8(1) is void. Section 19 allows a purchaser (and others) to apply for an exemption from any of the provisions of Pt 2. By s 19(6), notwithstanding s 8, a person may agree to sell a proposed allotment if the instrument that binds a person to purchase the proposed allotment is conditional upon the grant of an exemption. By s 19(7) an application for exemption must be made ‘within 30 days after the event that marks the entry of a purchaser upon the purchase of the proposed allotment.’

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - request for information

In Angus v Conelius [2007] QCA 190 the Queensland Court of Appeal concluded that the obligations under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), and in particular s 45 of the Act (duty of claimant to cooperate with insurer), continue beyond the commencement of court proceedings

Practice and procedure - Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 s45 - duty of claimant to cooperate with insurer

In Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited v Brown [2004] QCA 325 the Queensland Court of Appeal considered the extent of the duty of cooperation imposed on a claimant under s45 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld). The issue is an important one because it affects virtually all claims made under the Act.