Daily Construction: Thursday, 21 May 2015 View in browser

A daily Bulletin listing our choice of Decisions of Superior Courts of Australia.
Benchmark

Daily Construction

Executive Summary (One Minute Read)
Financial Securities Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council (QSC) - local government - refusal to invoke procedure under s236 Local Government Regulation 2012 to facilitate sale of land - declaratory relief refused
Peulen v Agius (QSC) - real property - statutory right of user in form of easement imposed on lot
Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
Financial Securities Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council [2015] QSC 130
Supreme Court of Queensland
Daubney J
Local government - applicant owned land it intended to develop as shopping centre -Council owned lots adjoining applicant’s land - Council has resolved to dispose of lots which applicant wish to buy - applicant wanted Council to invoke procedure provided for under s236 Local Government Regulation 2012 to facilitate sale - applicant sought declaratory relief which it argued would have practical effect of overcoming Council’s refusal to invoke the process - held: there was no present, factually-based controversy or dispute between parties concerning actions taken by Council under s236 - provisions of s 236 had not been invoked - declaration sought would at best be answer to hypothetical question - application dismissed.
Financial
Peulen v Agius [2015] QSC 137
Supreme Court of Queensland
Carmody CJ
Real property - easements - applicants sought order under s180 Property Law Act 1974 granting statutory right of user in respect of land owned by respondents - applicants sought right of access over land over which driveway extended connecting applicants’ dwelling and road - applicants willing to pay compensation to respondents for encumbrance on servient land - respondents resisted application on basis alternative access existed or sought compensation - held: Court satisfied there was “real chance” that application to Council for approval of easement would be successful - imposition of statutory right of user was essential to effective and productive use of lot - Court satisfied applicants’ proposed use of lot was consistent with public interest - respondents had unreasonably refused offer of compensation by applicants - statutory right of user in form of easement imposed - compensation quantified.
Peulen