"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)

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.

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.

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.

The origin of the Land grant act of 1862 (the so-called Morrill act) and some account of its author, Jonathan B. Turner,

Appendix A, Letter from Senator Morrill.--Appendix B, Extract from Forquer's letter.--Appendix C, The Turner pamphlet.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.