Legal Research
Cases
Bridges v Bridges

Bridges v Bridges

Case [2010] NSWSC 1287 8 November 2010

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: BRIDGES v BRIDGES [2010] NSWSC 1287

HEARING DATE(S): 11-13 October 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
8 November 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Tamberlin AJ at 1

DECISION: 1. Declare that the cause of action of Harold Rodney George Bridges to recover the land and buildings comprised in Lot 126 in Deposited Plan 750568 located at 480 Chakola Road, Chakola, in the State of New South Wales has been extinguished as against David Barry Bridges and his successors pursuant to s 65(1) of the Limitation Act 1969.
2. The amended first cross-claim is allowed with costs to be paid by the second cross-defendant.
3. The second cross-claim is dismissed with costs to be paid by the second cross-claimant.
4. Liberty to apply on two days’ notice.

CATCHWORDS: LIMITATION OF ACTION – Old System Title – adverse possession – whether possession for twelve year period – nature of possession – use as family home – acts of possession – intent to possess – entry into possession with consent of documentary owner – whether consent revoked – date of accrual of documentary owner’s cause of action – effect of party in possession obtaining valuations to fix a purchase price for the premises

LEGISLATION CITED: Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), ss 27, 28, 65

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Ace Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Australian Postal Corporation [2010] QCA 55
Bayport Industries Pty Ltd v Watson (2006) V Conv R 54-709
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor [1996] [HCA] 25; 186 CLR 541
Buckingham Shire County Council v Moran [1990] Ch 623; [1989] All ER 225
Clement v Jones (1909) 8 CLR 133
Edington v Clark [1964] 1 QB 367
Hagee Ltd v A B Erikson and Larson [1976] 1 QB 209
J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2002] UKHL, 30 [2003] 1 AC 419
Mulcahy v Curramore Pty Ltd [1974] 2 NSWLR 464
Murnane v Findlay [1926] VLR 80
Phillips v Marrickville Municipal Council [2002] NSWSC 396
Ramnarace v Lutchman [2001] 1 WLR 1651
South Maitland Railways Pty Ltd v Satellite Centres Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 716
Whittlesea City Council v Abbatangelo (2009) 259 ALR 56

TEXTS CITED: Professor Peter Butt, Land Law, (6th Edition) 2010; [22.02]–[22.25]; [22.31]–[22.34]
Case Note, “When Does a Tenant ‘Part with Possession’ in Breach of the Lease”, Peter Butt, (2010) 84 ALJ 522

PARTIES: John Ronald Bridges (First Plaintiff, First Cross-Defendant)
Harold Rodney George Bridges (Second Plaintiff, Second Cross-Defendant)
David Barry Bridges (Defendant; Cross-Claimant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2005/259329

COUNSEL: M Bradford – First and Second Plaintiffs; First and Second Cross-Defendants
S B Docker – Defendant, Cross-Claimant

SOLICITORS: Blaxland Mawson & Rose - First and Second Plaintiffs; First and Second Cross-Defendants
Capital Lawyers – Defendant; Cross-Claimant

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

TAMBERLIN AJ

8 NOVEMBER 2010

DAVID BARRY BRIDGES v JOHN RONALD BRIDGES

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: These reasons relate to the Amended Cross-Claim filed in this proceeding on 12 August 2010 made by David Barry Bridges (Barry) against John Ronald Bridges (John)…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bridges v Bridges

Details

AGLC: Bridges v Bridges [2010] NSWSC 1287
Case: [2010] NSWSC 1287
Decision Date: 8 November 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bridges v Bridges, the primary dispute revolved around the validity of a claim for adverse possession concerning a property with Old System Title. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Bridges, sought to establish ownership of the property through adverse possession, arguing that he had been in possession for over twelve years. The defendant, also Bridges, contested this claim, asserting that the plaintiff's possession was not adverse and that the defendant's consent was later revoked.

The central legal issues before the court included determining whether the plaintiff's possession met the statutory requirements for adverse possession, specifically whether the period of possession was sufficient, and the nature of the possession was such that it could be considered adverse. The court had to consider whether the plaintiff's use of the property as a family home constituted sufficient acts of possession and whether there was an intent to possess the property adversely. Additionally, the court examined the effect of the plaintiff entering into possession with the consent of the documentary owner and whether this consent was later revoked. Another issue was the timing of when the documentary owner's cause of action accrued, particularly in light of the plaintiff obtaining valuations to fix a purchase price for the property.

The court found that the plaintiff had been in possession of the property for a period exceeding twelve years, which satisfied the statutory requirement for adverse possession. The court acknowledged that the use of the property as a family home constituted sufficient acts of possession. However, the court also determined that the plaintiff's entry into possession was initially with the consent of the documentary owner, which had not been revoked at the time of the plaintiff's claim. The court further found that the plaintiff's obtaining of valuations to fix a purchase price did not constitute an act of adverse possession. Ultimately, the court held that the plaintiff's claim for adverse possession was not valid, as the possession was not adverse throughout the requisite period. The court ruled in favour of the defendant, affirming that the defendant remained the rightful owner of the property.

Orders