Gilbert v Goodwin - [2005] QSC 84

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Gilbert v Goodwin [2005] QSC 084

PARTIES:

ERROL RODERICK GILBERT, TREVOR GEORGE GILBERT, NEROLI DORELLE GILBERT, HIRAM ROSS GILBERT, VERNEE JOSEPH GILBERT AND EDWARD JOHN GILBERT
(plaintiffs/applicants)
v
JOHN PATRICK ANTHONY GOODWIN AND CATHERINE ALICE GOODWIN as personal representatives of THE ESTATE OF JOHN TAYLOR GOODWIN
(defendants/respondents)

FILE NO/S:

S5632 of 2000

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT: Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19 April 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 December 2004

JUDGE:

McMurdo J

ORDERS:

1.          I give judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendants

2.          I declare that the plaintiffs are entitled to be registered as owners of an estate in fee simple in the land described in the statement of claim

3.          I further order that the defendants do all things and sign all documents as may be required for the plaintiffs to become registered as owners of those lands

CATCHWORDS:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT – POWERS, FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF COUNCILS GENERALLY – PARTICULAR POWERS AND FUNCTIONS – POWERS OVER LAND – DISPOSAL – where land was sold by the local council at auction to recover unpaid rates under s 27(11)(i) of the Local Government Act 1936 – where plaintiffs sought registration as owners of land – where conflicting evidence as to the identity of the purchaser – where certificates of sale were cancelled and new certificates issued with the plaintiffs’ names substituted as purchasers – where certificates of sale were not registered – whether the certificates of sale can be challenged or must be registered under s 27(11)(v) – whether “the purchaser of such land” in s 27(11)(v) would include nominated transferees of the initial purchaser

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEUDRE – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE UNDER RULES OF COURT – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – where no other claim to the land since the sale – whether there is any real prospect that the prima facie evidence of the certificates would be displaced by the defendant

Local Government Act 1936 (Qld), s 27(11), s 27(12),
s 52(30)

Gilbert v Goodwin [2003] QSC 380, cited
Gilbert v Goodwin [2004] 2 Qd R 374, applied
Lord v Trippe (1977) 14 ALR 129, referred to
Meehan v Jones (1981-1982) 149 CLR 571, referred to
Tonelli v Komirra Pty Ltd [1972] VR 737, referred to
Re Barton ex parte Official Receiver v Barton (1983) 52 ALR 95; 76 FLR 223, discussed
Re Barton ex parte Official Receiver v Barton (1984) 58 ALR 328, discussed

COUNSEL:

J A Griffin QC with C J Carrigan for the applicants
M P Amerena for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Short Punch & Greatorix (Bundall) for the applicants
Tony Goodwin & Company (Gladstone) for the respondents

J: McMURDOIn 1969 the Albert Shire Council (“the Council”) sold land near Springbrook to recover unpaid rates. The plaintiffs claim that they were its purchasers and that they are entitled to be registered as its owners. Alternatively, they claim to be entitled to the land based upon adverse possession.

In 1969, the…

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 Gilbert v Goodwin

Details

AGLC: Gilbert v Goodwin [2005] QSC 84
Case: [2005] QSC 84
Decision Date: 19 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs in the matter of Gilbert v Goodwin sought to establish their entitlement to ownership of a parcel of land that had been sold by the local council at auction under the Local Government Act 1936. The land was sold to recover unpaid rates, and the plaintiffs claimed to be the rightful purchasers. The defendants, who held the certificates of sale, contested the plaintiffs' claims, leading to a dispute over the identity of the actual purchaser and the validity of the certificates of sale. The Supreme Court of Queensland was tasked with resolving these issues and determining whether the plaintiffs could be registered as the new owners of the land.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the certificates of sale could be challenged and whether the plaintiffs could be registered as the owners of the land. The court needed to examine the circumstances surrounding the sale, the validity of the certificates, and the implications of the Local Government Act 1936. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the certificates of sale could be contested and whether the term "the purchaser of such land" in section 27(11)(v) of the Act would include any nominated transferees of the initial purchaser. Additionally, the court considered whether there was a real prospect that the prima facie evidence of the certificates would be displaced by the defendant.

The court found in favour of the plaintiffs, concluding that they were entitled to be registered as the owners of the land. The certificates of sale were deemed valid, and the plaintiffs were identified as the rightful purchasers. The court held that there was no real prospect that the evidence provided by the certificates would be displaced, as no other claim to the land had been presented since the sale. Consequently, the court ordered that the defendants must take all necessary actions to ensure the plaintiffs could be registered as the new owners of the land, including signing any required documents.

In summary, the Supreme Court of Queensland ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to be registered as the owners of the land in question. The court's decision was based on the validity of the certificates of sale and the absence of any other legitimate claim to the property. The court ordered that the defendants must assist the plaintiffs in completing the registration process to transfer ownership of the land to the plaintiffs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. I give judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendants

2. I declare that the plaintiffs are entitled to be registered as owners of an estate in fee simple in the land described in the statement of claim

3. I further order that the defendants do all things and sign all documents as may be required for the plaintiffs to become registered as owners of those lands

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Gilbert v Goodwin [2005] QSC 084
PARTIES:	ERROL RODERICK GILBERT, TREVOR GEORGE GILBERT, NEROLI DORELLE GILBERT, HIRAM ROSS GILBERT, VERNEE JOSEPH GILBERT AND EDWARD JOHN GILBERT (plaintiffs/applicants) v JOHN PATRICK ANTHONY GOODWIN AND CATHERINE ALICE GOODWIN as personal representatives of THE ESTATE OF JOHN TAYLOR GOODWIN (defendants/respondents)
FILE NO/S:	S5632 of 2000
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	19 April 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	10 December 2004
JUDGE:	McMurdo J
ORDERS:	1. I give judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendants 2. I declare that the plaintiffs are entitled to be registered as owners of an estate in fee simple in the land described in the statement of claim 3. I further order that the defendants do all things and sign all documents as may be required for the plaintiffs to become registered as owners of those lands
CATCHWORDS:	LOCAL GOVERNMENT – POWERS, FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF COUNCILS GENERALLY – PARTICULAR POWERS AND FUNCTIONS – POWERS OVER LAND – DISPOSAL – where land was sold by the local council at auction to recover unpaid rates under s 27(11)(i) of the Local Government Act 1936 – where plaintiffs sought registration as owners of land – where conflicting evidence as to the identity of the purchaser – where certificates of sale were cancelled and new certificates issued with the plaintiffs’ names substituted as purchasers – where certificates of sale were not registered – whether the certificates of sale can be challenged or must be registered under s 27(11)(v) – whether “the purchaser of such land” in s 27(11)(v) would include nominated transferees of the initial purchaser PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEUDRE – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE UNDER RULES OF COURT – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – where no other claim to the land since the sale – whether there is any real prospect that the prima facie evidence of the certificates would be displaced by the defendant Local Government Act 1936 (Qld), s 27(11), s 27(12), s 52(30) Gilbert v Goodwin [2003] QSC 380, cited Gilbert v Goodwin [2004] 2 Qd R 374, applied Lord v Trippe (1977) 14 ALR 129, referred to Meehan v Jones (1981-1982) 149 CLR 571, referred to Tonelli v Komirra Pty Ltd [1972] VR 737, referred to Re Barton ex parte Official Receiver v Barton (1983) 52 ALR 95; 76 FLR 223, discussed Re Barton ex parte Official Receiver v Barton (1984) 58 ALR 328, discussed
COUNSEL:	J A Griffin QC with C J Carrigan for the applicants M P Amerena for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	Short Punch & Greatorix (Bundall) for the applicants Tony Goodwin & Company (Gladstone) for the respondents