Maller & Anor v Australia Pacific LNG CSG Transmissions Pty Ltd & Ors [2022] QLC 12
6-9-22 / Roger Traves KC, Damian Clothier KC, James Penrose — Land Law & Property, Resources & Energy
The applicants in these proceedings claim that one of the respondents introduced parthenium onto their property, which caused them loss for which they seek compensation. In this interlocutory hearing, the Land Court was required to determine whether a party to a Land Court proceeding requires leave to seek non-party disclosure.…
Enhance Property Investments No 3 Pty Ltd v Pier Traders Pty Ltd [2022] QSC 160
3-8-22 / Michael Trim — Land Law & Property
The applicant sought orders which would allow its builder to gain temporary access to a part of the respondent’s neighbouring land to erect scaffolding and undertake construction on the common boundary between both properties, relying on s180 of the Property Law Act 1974. Orders were ultimately made by agreement to…
Desbois v Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads; Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads v Desbois [2022] QLAC 1
26-5-22 / Rob Anderson KC, John Ware — Land Law & Property
An appeal to a determination for land compensation under s 20 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (Qld). Rob Anderson QC and John Ware appeared for the Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads, instructed by Clayton Utz. The judgment is published here.
Hamelech Basodeh Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council & Anor [2022] QSC 57
12-4-22 / Scott McLeod KC — Judicial Review & Administrative, Land Law & Property, Planning & Environment
A challenge to the decision of the Council to apply to the Minister for the resumption of the applicant’s land for the purposes of protection of koala habitat. Scott McLeod QC (led by C Gibson QC) appeared for the applicants, instructed by Colin Biggers & Paisley.
Golden Vision Gold Coast Pty Ltd v Orchid Avenue Pty Ltd & Anor [2022] QSC 49
7-4-22 / Michael May — Contract, Land Law & Property
This proceeding concerns a claim for almost $6 million in damages and compensation. The plaintiffs assert that the defendants made false or misleading representations to it and that certain conduct of the defendants meant that it was not able to effectively manage and operate the shopping centre in Cavill Lane…
