Parties legally bound to unsigned put and call option

The point at which the parties to a negotiation for the sale of land are legally bound can often be difficult to judge. This is particularly so where the parties have agreed a lawyer is to formalise the agreement between them. When the parties have not agreed all matters relating to the transaction, interesting questions arise as to what terms regulate the relationship. In Moffatt Property Development Group Pty Ltd v Hebron Park Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 60 the Queensland Court of Appeal considered first, whether there was a binding agreement to sell and secondly, how the relationship would be regulated in the absence of express agreement in relation to many of the terms.

Section 64 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) and the reluctant buyer

The decision of the Court of Appeal in Dunworth v Mirvac Qld Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 200 arose from unusual circumstances associated with the flood in Brisbane earlier this year. Maris Dunworth (‘the buyer’) agreed to purchase a ground floor residential apartment located beside the Brisbane River at Tennyson from Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd (‘Mirvac’). The original date for completion was 12 May 2009. In earlier proceedings, the buyer had alleged that she had been induced to purchase the apartment by false, misleading and deceptive representations. This claim was dismissed and an order for specific performance was made with a new completion date of 8 February 2011...

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.

When can a tenancy be terminated under s 129 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld)?

This article reviews the nature and purpose of s 129 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) whose application has given rise to some confusion in the past, particularly where the lessee against whom it is being used is also in breach of the lease at the time of receiving the notice. The article explores the historical origins of the section, firstly in New South Wales where it was enacted in 1930, and attempts to outline modern circumstances where it may be applied or particularly applied in Queensland.

Property law and practice in Queensland : being a commentary on the Property Law Act 1974

A Commentary on the Property Law Act 1974 Queensland

Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act (Qld) : disclosure, cooling-off and marketeers

The Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 commenced on 1 July 2001. Significant changes have now been made to the Act by the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Amendment Act 2001 (“the amending Act”). The amending Act contains two distinct parts. First, ss 11-19 of the amending Act provide for increased disclosure obligations on real estate agents, property developers and lawyers together with an extension of the 5 business day cooling-off period imposed by the original Act to all residential property (other than contracts formed on a sale by auction). These provisions are expected to commence on 29 October 2001. The remaining provisions of the amending Act provide for increased jurisdiction and powers to the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) enabling the Tribunal to deal with claims against marketeers. These provisions commenced on the date of assent (21 September 2001).

Surviving the Personal Property Securities Act (2009) Cth

Australia has new national legislation - the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) and the Personal Property Securities Regulations 2010 – which is expected to commence operating in February 2012. Previous personal property securities legislation was very complex, with more than seventy pieces of legislation in the states and territories, and more than forty registers. This reform package is the culmination of a process that began many years ago and various drafts have been the subject of much investigation and consultation. This legislation rationalises previous laws and bring about substantial changes to this area of law. This paper seeks to explain the principal changes and their implications.

In focus : the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth)

Australia has new national legislation - the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) and the Personal Property Securities Regulations 2010 – which commenced operation on 30 January 2012. Previous personal property securities legislation was very complex, with more than seventy pieces of legislation in the states and territories, and more than forty registers. This reform package is the culmination of a process that began many years ago and various drafts have been the subject of much investigation and consultation. This legislation rationalises previous laws and bring about substantial changes to this area of law. This paper seeks to explain the principal changes and their implications.

Outline of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth)

Australia has new national legislation - the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) and the Personal Property Securities Regulations 2010 – which commenced operation on 30 January 2012. The policy objectives of the new legislation are to increase certainty and consistency and to reduce complexity and cost. To achieve this, the legislation treats like transactions alike, by focusing on substance over form, and so removes distinctions between security interests which have been based on their structure. Differences based on the location or nature of the secured property and the debtor’s legal form, as an individual or company, have also disappeared. We now have one single national scheme and one national electronic registration system for all security interests throughout Australia. The Act applies to security interests in tangible and intangible personal property, including those based on some form of title retention which are not security interests under the general law. This legislation rationalises previous laws and bring about substantial changes to this area of law. This paper seeks to explain the principal changes and their implications.

Major changes to property law in Queensland

From 1 December 2014 a number of major changes were made to property law in Queensland with the simultaneous commencement of the Land Sales and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2014 (Qld) and the Property Occupations Act 2014 (Qld). This article examines these changes, their rationale and their implications for practice.

Final report to Congress, The Streambank Erosion Control Evaluation and Demonstration Act of 1974, Section 32, Public Law 93-251 : Main report, supplemented by appendices A-H in separate volumes /

Main report -- Appendix A. Literature survey -- Appendix B. Hydraulic research -- Appendix C. Geotechnical research -- Appendix D. Ohio River demonstration projects -- Appendix F. Missouri River demonstration projects (2 v.) -- Appendix F. Yazoo River Basin demonstration projects -- Appendix G. Demonstration projects on other streams, nationwide (2 v.) -- Appendix H. Evaluation of existing projects (2 v.).

Foreign direct investment in the United States : report of the Secretary of Commerce to the Congress in compliance with the Foreign investment study act of 1974, Public law 93-479.

Vol. 1 includes full text of the Foreign investment study act of 1974.

A changing landscape : The mortgagee's power of sale in Queensland

In Australia, the extent of a mortgagee’s duty when exercising power of sale has long been the subject of conjecture. With the advent of the global financial crisis in the latter part of 2008, there has been some concern to ensure that the interests of mortgagors are adequately protected. In Queensland, concern of this type resulted in the enactment of the Property Law (Mortgagor Protection) Amendment Act 2008 (Qld). This amending legislation operates to both extend and strengthen the operation of s 85 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) which regulates the mortgagee’s power of sale in Queensland. This article examines the impact of this amending legislation which was hastily introduced and passed by the Queensland Parliament without consultation and which introduces a level of prescription in relation to a sale under a prescribed mortgage which is without precedent elsewhere in Australia.

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.

Statutory right of user imposed for landlocked land

The decision of McMurdo J in Pacific Coast Investments Pty Ltd v Cowlishaw [2005] QSC 259 concerned an application under s 180 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) for a statutory right of user.