ON 15 JULY 2008 the NSW Land and Environment Court delivered 23 Bangaroo Street, North Balgowlah Pty Ltd v Valuer General [2008] NSWLEC 1286 (15 July 2008).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2008/1286.html
The Land and Environment Court rejected an appeal pursuant to s37 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 and confirmed the land value of 23 Bangaroo Street, North Balgowlah, to be $434,000 as of 1 July 2006.
1300 00 2088
Plexvon Neutral Bay Pty Ltd v Lily [2007] NSWSC 423 (18 April 2007).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2007/423.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Plexvon Neutral Bay Pty Ltd v Lily [2007] NSWSC 423 (18 April 2007).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2007/423.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 3 JUNE 1992, the High Court of Australia delivered Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (“Mabo case”) [1992] HCA 23; (1992) 175 CLR 1 (3 June 1992).
Upon the British Crown’s acquisition of sovereignty over parts of Australia since 1788, aboriginal native title survived and as such the doctrine of terra nullius does not apply to Australia.
Where validly asserted, native title entitles its holders as against the world to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the particular land over which the title is claimed. It is ascertained according to the laws and customs of it’s indigenous inhabitants who have a connexion with the land through continued use and enjoyment by the group or clan since the Crown’s acquisition of sovereignty.
Native title is inalienable but is extinguished if the clan or group ceases to have a connexion with the land, or by a valid exercise of government power under the laws of the Commonwealth.
1300 00 2088
ON 10 DECEMBER 1987, the High Court of Australia delivered Baumgartner v Baumgartner [1987] HCA 59; (1987) 164 CLR 137 (10 December 1987).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1987/59.html
The parties had lived together in a de facto relationship. They pooled their earnings to meet all outgoings of the joint relationship, including mortgage payments over the family home purchased with the husband as the only registered proprietor.
After about four years the relationship came to an end. The wife sought a declaration that she held an interest in the property in trust. The husband asserted that only he held the legal title to the property.
The court held that the wife held a beneficial interest in the property by way of constructive trust.
Per Mason CJ, Wilson and Deane JJ at 149:
“The case is accordingly one in which the parties have pooled their earnings for the purposes of their joint relationship, one of the purposes of that relationship being to secure accommodation for themselves and their child. Their contributions, financial and otherwise, to the acquisition of the land, the building of the house, the purchase of furniture and the making of their home, were on the basis of, and for the purposes of, that joint relationship. In this situation the appellant’s assertion, after the relationship had failed, that the Leumeah property, which was financed in part through the pooled funds, is his sole property, is his property beneficially to the exclusion of any interest at all on the part of the respondent, amounts to unconscionable conduct which attracts the intervention of equity and the imposition of a constructive trust at the suit of the respondent.”
The High Court declared that the parties hold beneficial interests in the property of 55% to the husband and 45% to the wife, subject to adjustments.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 25 JULY 1978, the High Court of Australia delivered Housing Commission of NSW v San Sebastian Pty Ltd [1978] HCA 28; (1978) 140 CLR 196 (25 July 1978).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1978/28.html
When valuing land for the purposes of compensation for resumption, no regard is to be given to either the increase or diminution in the value of the land entirely brought about by the resumption.
See also: Pointe Gourde Quarrying and Transport Co Ltd v Sub-Intendent of Crown Lands [1947] AC 565.
1300 00 2088
ON THIS DAY in 1976, the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia enacted the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/alrta1976444
1300 00 2088
ON 30 APRIL 1976, the High Court of Australia delivered Ogle v Comboyuro Investments Pty Ltd [1976] HCA 21; (1976) 136 CLR 444 (30 April 1976).
“Vendor and Purchaser – Sale of land – Contract of sale – Refusal by purchaser to complete – Anticipatory breach – Suit for specific performance by vendor – Continued refusal by purchaser to complete – Whether vendor entitled to rescind and claim damages.”
A contract may be rescinded by a vendor for repudiation whilst an action for specific performance is on foot if the purchaser refuses to complete and acts as though it intends to be no longer bound by the contract.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 17 JULY 1975, the High Court of Australia delivered Petelin v Cullen [1975] HCA 24; (1975) 132 CLR 355 (17 July 1975).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1975/24.html
Petelin owned land at Liverpool. He spoke little English and could not read English. Cullen through his agent sent Petelin $50 with a letter seeking his agreement to extend an option to purchase land for a further 6 months. Cullen’s agent then saw Petelin and asked him to sign to the letter that he received the $50. Petelin signed the letter believing he had signed a receipt, not an option.
Cullen sought an order for specific performance in the Supreme Court of NSW. The Supreme Court dismissed the action on the grounds that Petelin had made out the defence of non est factum. The NSW Court of Appeal then overturned the Supreme Court decision, ordering specific performance.
The High Court allowed Petelin’s appeal, overturning the Court of Appeal’s decision and dismissing Cullen’s action for specific performance.
The High Court found that Petelin was entitled to the defence of non est factum as he believed that he had signed a receipt, was not careless and that in any event, Cullen was not an innocent person without knowledge or reason to doubt the validity of the signature.
To make out a defence of non est factum, the defendant must show:
There is a heavy onus on the defendant to show that he or she believed the document to be radically different from what it was in fact.
1300 00 2088
ON 14 MAY 1974, the High Court of Australia delivered Neeta (Epping) Pty Ltd v Phillips [1974] HCA 18; (1974) 131 CLR 286 (14 May 1974).
In a contract for the sale of land in which time is not of the essence, a party seeking to rely on a notice to complete must itself be free of default by way of breach or delay. When such a notice is ineffective, the purchaser’s continued failure to complete does not amount to a repudiation allowing the vendor to rescind.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1974/18.html
1300 00 2088
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 