Legal Research
Cases
Ceedive Pty Ltd v May, Timms, McFadden and Mudway

Ceedive Pty Ltd v May, Timms, McFadden and Mudway

Case [2005] NSWSC 222 18 March 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
CEEDIVE PTY LTD v MAY, TIMMS, McFADDEN & MUDWAY [2005] NSWSC 222
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 3 - 6, 9 - 13 February 2004; 17 - 19 May 2004

JUDGMENT DATE :

18 March 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Levine J

DECISION:
Direct the plaintiff to bring in Short Minutes of Orders in each action conformable with these reasons, encompassing the entry of judgment for possession, the issue of a writ of possession, the entry of a judgment for a sum for arrears of rent, any order as to an enquiry as to, or judgment for quantified, mesne profits, costs, including any special order for costs in relation to the late service of an affidavit by Mr Edds, and dismissal of the cross-claim; Order the return of the exhibits.

CATCHWORDS:
Possession of land - miners' cottages - Pottery Estate Lithgow NSW - ground leases - nature of tenancies - Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1948

LEGISLATION CITED:
Contracts Review Act 1980
Conveyancing Act 1919
Landlord and Tenant Act 1899
Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1948
Real Property Act 1900

CASES CITED:
Anderson v Toohey's Ltd (1937) 37 SR (NSW) 70
Australian Provincial Assurance Co Ltd v Coroneo (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 700
BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Hastings Shire Council (1977) 180 CLR 266
Bahr & Anor v Nicolay & Ors (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 604
Barry v Heider (1914) 19 CLR 197
Billing v Pill [1954] 1 QB 70
Bonnington & Co Ltd v Lynch (1952) 86 CLR 259
Bowen v Anderson (1894) 1 QB 164
Burden v Ainsworth [2004] NSWCA 3
Citycorp Australia Ltd v O'Brien (1996) 40 NSWLR 398
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority (1982) 149 CLR 337
Coulls v Bagot's Executor & Trustee Co Ltd (1967) 119 CLR 460
David Jones Ltd v Leventhal (1927) 40 CLR 357
Di Salvio v Manthorpe [1965] NSWR 360
Eastern Nitrogen Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2001) 108 FCR 27
Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997] 1 WLR 687
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Metal Manufactures Ltd (2001) 108 FCR 150
Frazer v Walker [1967] AC 569
Greater Union Organisation Pty Ltd v Ball [1967] 1 NSWR 538
Grgic v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1994) 33 NSWLR 202
H A Warner Pty Ltd v Williams (1946) 73 CLR 421
Hobson v Gorringe [1897] 1 Ch 182
Holland v Hodgson (1872) LR 7 CP 328
Huffell v Armistead (1835) 7 Car & P 56; 173 ER 25
Hunt v Luck [1902] 1 Ch 428
Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Co v Anderson (1898) 2 Ch 394
Marsden v Campbell (1897) 18 LR(NSW)Eq 33
McKenzie v McKenzie (1944) 62 WN (NSW) 48
Melluish (Inspector of Taxes) v B M I (No3) Ltd [1996] AC 454
Munro v Stuart (1924) 41 SR (NSW) 203
Muscolino v Ramm (1986) 5 NSWLR 385
NH Dunn Pty Ltd v LM Ericsson Pty Ltd…

Details

AGLC: Ceedive Pty Ltd v May, Timms, McFadden and Mudway [2005] NSWSC 222
Case: [2005] NSWSC 222
Decision Date: 18 March 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ceedive Pty Ltd v May, Timms, McFadden and Mudway, the primary issue before the court was the interpretation of ground leases and the rights associated with the possession of land, specifically concerning miners' cottages located at the Pottery Estate in Lithgow, New South Wales. The plaintiff, Ceedive Pty Ltd, sought to determine the nature of the tenancies held by the defendants in relation to the land in question. The defendants contested the plaintiff's claims, arguing that their rights under the ground leases should be recognised as more than mere licence agreements. The court had to decide whether the defendants held a lease under the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1948 or if their rights were limited to a licence.

The court examined the terms of the ground leases and considered the history of the land and the miners' cottages. It was established that the cottages were originally built under the control of the Department of Labour and Industry and were subject to specific conditions regarding their use and occupancy. The court held that the defendants' rights did not amount to a lease under the Act but rather were licences to occupy the land for specific purposes. The court emphasised that the nature of the tenancies was primarily tied to the statutory requirements and the historical context of the land's use. The court found that the defendants' rights did not confer the protections afforded to tenants under the Act.

In light of the above findings, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, Ceedive Pty Ltd. The defendants' rights were recognised as licences to occupy the land, rather than leases, and thus did not provide the same protections under the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1948. The court's decision confirmed the plaintiff's entitlement to possession of the land in question, subject to the specific terms of the licences held by the defendants. The final orders of the court recognised the nature of the tenancies and confirmed the plaintiff's rights to the land.

Orders