Preview

Property Law Notes

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
22017 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Property Law Notes
PROPERTY LAW 2013

Contents

1. Rights Above and Below Land…………………………………………………….
3
2. Fixtures and Related Matters………………………………………………………
7
3. Co – Ownership…………………………………………………………………….
12
4. Easements…………………………………………………………………………..
26
5. Covenants…………………………………………………………………………..
35
6. Adverse Possession………………………………………………………………...
46
7. Native Title Legislation and Indigenous Land Rights Legislation………………...
60

1. Rights Above and Below Land

Cuius est solum eius usque ad coelom et ad inferos – the person who owns land, owns it from the heavens above to the centre of the earth below.

Above the land

Transient Intrusion
It is not considered trespass if it passes through the air without coming into contact with the surface.
However, Recent cases held that transient intrusions into airspace do constitute trespass. Davis v Bennison (1927) 22 Tas LR 52 at 56 held that to fire a bullet across another’s land constitutes a trespass, regardless of whether the bullet touches the surface
In Australia Bendal Pty Ltd v Mirvac Project Pty Ltd (1991)held that the intrusion of a crane jib into the airspace above land is a trespass

Permanent Intrusion
Permanent intrusions are considered trespass however, with the exceptions of telephone wires Wandsworth District Board of works v United Telephone co Ltd 1884 or advertising signs Kelson v Imperial Tobacco Co Ltd [1957]

Height Limitations
No action lies for trespass ‘by reason only of the flight of an aircraft over any property at a height above the ground, which, having regard to wind, weather, and all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, or ordinary incidents of such flight, so long as the provisions of the4 Air Navigation Regulations are duly complied with’.

Bernstein v Skyviews & General Ltd [1978]
‘where the flight of an aircraft ‘many hundreds of feet above the ground’ was held not to constitute a trespass. Griffith J held that a surface owner’s rights in the airspace

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Better Essays

    Cadia Case Analysis

    • 1711 Words
    • 7 Pages

    [ 5 ]. Wade v New South Wales Rutile Mining Co Pty Ltd (1969) 121 CLR 177 at 186.…

    • 1711 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    CASE NOTE

    • 2311 Words
    • 8 Pages

    GK v Dovedeen Pty Ltd & Anor (No 3) [2011] QCAT 509 (25 October 2011)…

    • 2311 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    No duty to trespassers except not to willfully cause the injury (Mail v. Smith Lumber Co., 287 P. 2d 877 (Wash. 1955)).…

    • 404 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Decision: No. no evidence was produced that helicopters flying at this attitude are illegal. There is no reasonable expectation that the content of the respondent greenhouse were protected from public or official observation from the air since he left it roof open. From this the Florida Supreme Court reversed the Judgment.…

    • 379 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Usyd Claw1001 Paper

    • 1128 Words
    • 5 Pages

    'Appellants were employed by the respondent as baggage handler at Sydney Airport, they were dismissed from their employment' for stealing funds. 'Appellants sought an order for imposition of penalty and payment of penalty to them.' Trial judge found out respondents in 'terminating the appellants’ employment was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable and dismissed the claims.' 'The Full Court held that it was contrary however appellants were still not entitled to damages for breach of contract.'…

    • 1128 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Railroad essay

    • 410 Words
    • 2 Pages

    may come in contact with the trains or the tracks themselves. “Trespassing along railroad rights-…

    • 410 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The more serious crime of "aggravated criminal trespass" combines trespassing with conduct that would cause fear for someone's safety. This is a Class B misdemeanor. If the "aggravated criminal trespass" is committed in a house or a hospital or a school, it is a Class A misdemeanor. One word of caution: sometimes posting a "no trespassing" sign can backfire. Because the "adverse possession" rules are so complicated, posting a "no trespassing" sign can actually help a trespasser support a claim to the owner's property.…

    • 1325 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Best Essays

    Aitken, L, 'Unforgiven: Some thoughts on Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd ' (2007) 29 Australian Bar Review 195…

    • 3483 Words
    • 14 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    This encroachment may constitute a defect in title as the vendor cannot pass to John the part of the land the subject of the encroachment.…

    • 1383 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Notice to Complete

    • 1451 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Analyze Luxford & Anor v Sidhu & 3 others [2007] NSWSC 1356 (3 December 2007) as follows:…

    • 1451 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Best Essays

    * Victorian Stevedoring & General Contracting Co Pty Ltd & Meakes v Dignan (1931) 46 CLR 73.…

    • 2525 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Good Essays

    The COE was not overstepping in its requirement of a permit because of its authority under the CWA. The wetland’s inclusion under the jurisdiction of the CWA was protected because of its adjacency to a navigable body of water, and the broad definition of “navigable” under the CWA. The Court ruled that the injunction and permit requirement did not constitute a taking, because of the respondent’s lack of compliance to apply for one. Also, the denial of a permit would not reduce the economic viability of RBH’s 80 acres by 100%. The court relied on scientific deference, because if this wetland could have a significant effect on the adjacent body of navigable water explicitly protected by the CWA, then it is subject to CWA jurisdiction.…

    • 665 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Physical perimeter boundaries is a clear delineation between public property and restricted locations is often required to isolated project areas. The use of fences, wire entanglements, concrete bollards, beams, signs and cleared land ( for observation purposes) ensures that private property is clearly identified and access by all but the most determined intruder is prevented or deterred. This method will avoid the accidental intrusion and provides a psychological barrier against intrusion (Deutsch).…

    • 1927 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    In the case of Reeves vs Meridian Southern, it was alleged that Meridian Southern placed railcars on spurs without permission. Meridian had used this spur for years and years without incident till this case. Meridian Southern should have been informed by Reeves about the change of ownership. Trespassers are ones who enter another’s land unlawfully without consent or the privilege to be there. By this definition, Meridian Southern is trespassing Reeve’s land. This could have all been avoided if Meridian Southern would have asked for permission to use the spur. Even if they had to pay for the use of it.…

    • 101 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Yong Joo Lin

    • 531 Words
    • 3 Pages

    8. It was held by the learned Chief Justice that plaintiffs’ claim would be succeed if English law were applicable. However, in view of the provisions of the Land Code, the common law of England could not be applied. The alternative claim in trespass had not been established. Plaintiffs’ claim was accordingly dismissed, and they have appealed.…

    • 531 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays

Related Topics