| Do Not Send for Reporting | ||
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
S CI 2012 3261
| KY ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (ACN 006 236 022) | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| KERRY DARBY | Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | LANSDOWNE As J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 21-23, 28 May and 3 June 2013; further submissions 4 and 7 June 2013 and 23 August 2013 | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 6 September 2013 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | KY Enterprises Pty Ltd v Darby | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2013] VSC 484 | |
---
REAL PROPERTY – adverse possession – land between two shops – land enclosed with adverse possessor’s land by locked gates – consideration of access to the land by registered owner from a door in the registered owner’s shop – whether adverse possessor abandoned possession by absence of one year – whether use of land by registered proprietor amounted to retaking of possession – significance of adverse possessor granting permission to registered proprietor to use land - Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) ss 8,9,14, 16 and 18.
REAL PROPERTY – trespass - whether defendant liable for the trespass of his agent or his tenant.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Mr J. Warren | Lim Whalen & Co, Lawyers |
| For the Defendant | Mr M. Black | Bullards |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 2
Outline of the facts............................................................................................................................ 3
Legal principles: adverse possession............................................................................................. 6
The parties contentions in relation to adverse possession...................................................... 11
Defendant’s case for adverse possession................................................................................. 11
Plaintiff’s case against adverse possession.............................................................................. 12
Summary of conclusions................................................................................................................ 14
Issues: adverse possession............................................................................................................. 15
Identification of the disputed land.............................................................................................. 16
When did the defendant commence his occupation of no. 10 Eames Avenue?................... 17
Factual possession prior to 1987.................................................................................................... 23
Discussion and conclusion......................................................................................................... 27
Gates......................................................................................................................................... 28
Access through the rear door of no.8........................................................................................ 30
Intention to possess prior to 1987................................................................................................. 32
Abandonment of possession by travel around Australia?....................................................... 37
Authorities................................................................................................................................... 39
Discussion and conclusion......................................................................................................... 44
Summary and conclusion as to possession prior to the plaintiff’s purchase....................... 46
Start date; no abandonment..................................................................................................... 46
Boundary: possession of the whole?......................................................................................... 47
End date................................................................................................................................... 48
Possession of the disputed land October 1987-March 2011..................................................... 49
Issues and submissions.............................................................................................................. 49
October 1987 –March 1988......................................................................................................... 53
March 1988 to February 1991.................................................................................................... 59
February 1991 to May 1996........................................................................................................ 60
May 1996-March 2011................................................................................................................. 67
Significance of this period and overview.................................................................................. 67
Entry through the gates without a key.................................................................................... 69
Plaintiff’s 2001 survey and letter dated 25 July 2001............................................................ 73
Conversations about the driveway........................................................................................... 77
Internal fencing........................................................................................................................ 78
Plaintiff’s letter dated September 2010.................................................................................... 84
Conclusion as to possession 1987 - March 2011...................................................................... 86
Trespass.............................................................................................................................................. 89
Attempt to erect a fence in March 2011 and subsequent events.......................................... 89
Plaintiff’s claims of trespass...................................................................................................... 92
Relevant law of trespass............................................................................................................. 93
Findings and conclusions in relation to trespass.................................................................... 96
Car and shipping container..................................................................................................... 96
Barrier across the rear door to shop 8...................................................................................... 96
Orders................................................................................................................................................. 98
HER HONOUR:
Introduction
These proceedings concern a portion of land between two commercial premises in Brooklyn, being the land known as 8 Eames Avenue Brooklyn, which…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read KY Enterprises Pty Ltd v Darby and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2013] VSC 484
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the relevant provisions of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) which govern adverse possession. It was noted that the adverse possessor had been absent for one year, which could potentially be considered an abandonment of possession. However, the court also considered the significance of the adverse possessor granting permission to the registered proprietor to use the land. The court found that the use of the land by the registered proprietor did not amount to a retaking of possession as it was done with the permission of the adverse possessor. The court also considered whether Darby was liable for the trespass of his agent or his tenant, but found that there was no evidence to support this claim.
The court concluded that Darby had not abandoned his adverse possession of the land and that KY Enterprises had not effectively retaken possession of the land. The court held that the adverse possessor had not abandoned his possession as he had been absent for only one year and had granted permission for the registered proprietor to use the land. The court also found that Darby was not liable for the trespass of his agent or his tenant.
The final orders of the court were that KY Enterprises’ action be dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.