KY Enterprises Pty Ltd v Darby

Link copied
Case Copied 85 min read
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

  1. These proceedings concern a portion of land between two commercial premises in Brooklyn, being the land known as 8 Eames Avenue Brooklyn, which…

CaseChat AU logo

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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2013] VSC 484
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

KY Enterprises Pty Ltd brought an action against Darby in the Supreme Court of Victoria over the adverse possession of a small plot of land situated between two shops. The land was enclosed with Darby's land by locked gates. The registered owner of the land, KY Enterprises, claimed that Darby had abandoned his possession by being absent for one year and that KY Enterprises had retaken possession of the land by using it. The court was required to decide whether Darby had abandoned his adverse possession and if KY Enterprises had effectively retaken possession of the land.

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.