LV Property Investments Pty Ltd v Liang

LV Property Investments Pty Ltd (the plaintiff) sought to recover possession of a property from Mr Liang (the defendant) and to recover damages for trespass. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had unlawfully occupied the property after the termination of a licence agreement. The dispute concerned the defendant's right to remain in possession of the property following the expiry of a licence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the defendant's continued occupation of the property after the termination of the licence agreement constituted trespass. This required the Court to determine the nature of the licence granted to the defendant and the effect of its termination. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the licence was revocable at will and, if so, whether the defendant had any legal right to remain in possession.

Judge Burchardt found that the licence granted to the defendant was a bare licence, revocable at the will of the licensor. The Court reasoned that there was no contractual term or proprietary interest that would prevent the plaintiff from revoking the licence. Upon revocation, the defendant's right to occupy the property ceased, and his continued presence constituted trespass. The Court applied the principles established in cases concerning the revocation of bare licences and the consequences of remaining in possession after such revocation.

The Court ordered that the defendant deliver up possession of the property to the plaintiff and awarded damages for trespass.