Di Napoli v New Beach Apartments Pty Ltd

In the matter of Di Napoli v New Beach Apartments Pty Ltd, the dispute centred on the termination of a licence to use a parking space under a building, following the sale of the property. The respondent, New Beach Apartments, had conveyed the property to the appellant, Di Napoli, who had previously been granted a licence to park in the subterranean car park by the respondent. The appellant sought to continue using the car park, while the respondent sought to terminate the licence, arguing that it had ceased to exist upon the sale of the property. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issues for determination were whether the licence to use the parking space survived the sale of the property, and if not, whether the appellant's continued use of the car park amounted to a trespass. The court considered the general principle that licences to occupy land ordinarily terminate upon the sale of the property, but also examined the nature of the licence in question and the extent to which it could be considered a proprietary interest in the land.

In determining the matter, the court held that the licence to use the parking space did not survive the sale of the property, as it was not a proprietary interest but rather a personal licence. The court found that the licence was personal to the original licensee and did not bind subsequent owners of the property. The court also held that the appellant's continued use of the car park after the sale amounted to a trespass, as it was an unauthorised occupation of the respondent's property. The court noted that the trespass occurred from the moment the appellant entered the car park after the sale, and that the respondent was entitled to seek an injunction to prevent further trespass.

The court ordered that the appellant pay damages to the respondent for the trespass, and that an injunction be issued to prevent the appellant from further using the car park without the respondent's consent. The court also noted that the respondent was entitled to seek further orders to recover possession of the car park if necessary.