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.

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...

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

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.

Compensation or consideration for a statutory right of user?

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. A key issue in an application under s 180 is compensation. Unfortunately, while s 180 expressly contemplates that an order for compensation will include provision for payment of compensation to the owner of servient land there are certain issues that are less clear. One of these is the basis for determination of the amount of compensation. In this regard, s 180(4)(a) provides that, in making an order for a statutory right of user, the court: (a) shall, except in special circumstances, include provision for payment by the applicant to such person or persons as may be specified in the order of such amount by way of compensation or consideration as in the circumstances appears to the court to be just The operation of this statutory provision was considered by de Jersey CJ (as he then was) in Peulen v Agius [2015] QSC 137.

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.

Submission to the 2012 Review of the Retirement Villages Act 1999 (Qld)

The submission addresses matters relevant to Issues for Comment numbered 1, 3, 5, 22 and 32 of the Issues Paper released by the Transport, Housing and local Government Committee of the Queensland Parliament. It concludes by making five recommendations for consideration by the Committee.

Breaches of lease between exercise of option to renew and expiry of lease in Queensland

The decision of Greppo v Jam-Cal Bundaberg Pty Ltd [2015] QCA 131 illustrates a defect in s 128 of the Property Law Act 1974(Qld) which gives a right to a lessee to apply for relief against forfeiture against loss of a right to exercise an option to renew. The defect arises because the legislation does not adequately deal with breaches that occur after the exercise of the option but before the expiry of the lease. Most commercial leases of all kinds have a standard provisions, as the lease in this case, as a conditions of the exercise of the option to renew that the lessee will have given notice of exercise within the time specified to the lessor and will have up to the date of expiry of the lease paid all rent and observed all lessee’s covenants. The difficulties occur because invariably an option must be exercised before the expiry of the lease when a lessee may not be in breach of the lease but may later prior to the expiry of the lease fall into breach. As this decision indicates,at least in Queensland, that the lessee who desires to challenge the lessor’s right to enforce those conditions can neither seek relief under s 128 against forfeiture of the right to exercise the option ,or indeed, under s 124 of the Property Law Act 1974 to preserve the agreement for lease brought about by the otherwise regular exercise of the option to renew. The decision cries out for legislative reform along the lines of s 133E of the Conveyancing Act 1919(NSW) which was amended in 2001 to meet this contingency.

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: