DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Greene v McInnes [2013] QDC 207
PARTIES:
GEOFFREY WILLIAM GREENE
(plaintiff)v
MICHAEL WILLIAM McINNES
(first defendant)and
THANYAPORN SUPPAPAHOL
(second defendant)FILE NO/S:
BD 4998/11
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
29 November 2013
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
3, 4 October 2012, 28 March 2013
JUDGE:
McGill SC DCJ
ORDER:
Judgment that the defendants pay the plaintiff $27,643, including interest of $2,643. Injunctions in terms to be finalised.
CATCHWORDS:
TRESPASS TO LAND – Excavations for retaining wall across common boundary – wall straddles boundary - whether agreement - damages – exemplary damages.
DAMAGES – Trespass to land – excavation for retaining wall across common boundary – wall straddles boundary – loss of land area – reinstatement costs – consequential loss – violation of property rights – exemplary damages.
TORRENS SYSTEM – Encroachment – retaining wall built across common boundary – whether drain pipe and drainage gravel encroachment.Property Law Act 1974 ss 179, 180, 182, 185.
Barbagallo v J & F Catalan Pty Ltd [1986] 1 Qd R 245 – cited.
Carr v Sourlos (1994) 6 BPR 13, 626 – cited.
Carver v Hill [2010] QDC 401 – cited.
Dasreet Pty Ltd v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588 – cited.
Davey v Harrow Corporation [1958] 1 QB 60 – cited.
Gartner v Kidman (1962) 108 CLR 12 – cited.
Gazzard v Hutchinson (1995) Aust Torts Reports 81-337 – applied.
Gray v Motor Accident Commission (1998) 196 CLR 1 – cited.
Hansen v Gloucester Developments Pty Ltd [1992] 1 Qd R 14 – applied.
Morgan v Khyatt [1964] 1 WLR 475 – cited.
Pietruszkiewicz v Whitfort [2003] QDC 577 - considered
Plenty v Dillon (1991) 171 CLR 635 – applied.
Stereff v Rycen [2010] QDC 117 – cited.
Tallon v Metropolitan TowersBUP5157 [1997] 1 Qd R 102 – applied.
Thiess Pty Ltd v Arup Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 131 – cited.
Uren v John Fairfax and Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118 – cited.
WAQ v Di Pino [2012] QCA 283 applied.
XL Petroleum (NSW) Pty Ltd v Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd (1985) 155 CLR 448 – applied.COUNSEL:
P J Baston for the plaintiff (2012); plaintiff in person (2013)
J A Sheean for the defendants
SOLICITORS:
Provest Law (2012). The plaintiff was not represented in 2013.
McKelvey & Hu for the defendants.
The plaintiff and the defendants are neighbours in a particular street where the land slopes downhill from the plaintiff’s land to the defendants’ land, and to some extent downhill from the back of the plaintiff’s land to the street frontage.
History of the proceeding
On 8 December 2011 the plaintiff filed a claim and statement of claim in this court seeking a declaration that, as a result of the defendants’ demolition of a boulder wall between their properties, the defendants had withdrawn the natural support of the plaintiff’s land by that wall, part of the plaintiff’s land had subsided, and there was…
Continue reading Greene v McInnes
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Greene v McInnes [2013] QDC 207
- Case
- [2013] QDC 207
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether there was an agreement between the parties regarding the wall's construction and whether the wall constituted an encroachment on the plaintiffs' property under the Torrens system. Additionally, the court needed to assess the extent of the encroachment, the damages resulting from the trespass, and whether exemplary damages were warranted due to the violation of property rights. The court found that there was no agreement between the parties concerning the wall's construction and that the wall did indeed encroach upon the plaintiffs' property. The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for the loss of land area, reinstatement costs, and consequential loss. Furthermore, the court awarded exemplary damages due to the defendants' violation of the plaintiffs' property rights.
The court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs $27,643, including interest of $2,643. The court also issued injunctions to prevent further encroachment on the plaintiffs' property, with the specific terms of the injunctions to be finalised. The judgment addressed the trespass to land, the loss of land area, and the violation of property rights, providing the plaintiffs with the necessary compensation and protection against future encroachments.
Orders
Orders of the court
Judgment that the defendants pay the plaintiff $27,643, including interest of $2,643. Injunctions in terms to be finalised.
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.