Paroz v Paroz

[2010] QSC 203

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Paroz & Ors  v Paroz [2010] QSC 203

PARTIES:

IAN LESLIE PAROZ
(first defendant/first applicant)
JENNIFER MARGARET PAROZ
(second defendant/second applicant)
LEWIS MARTIN PAROZ
(third defendant/third applicant)
KAREN ANN PAROZ
(fourth defendant/fourth applicant)
v
LESLIE ROLAND PAROZ
(plaintiff/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 9656/04

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

11 June 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 June 2010

JUDGE:

Peter Lyons J

ORDER:

Injunction granted with costs

CATCHWORDS:

EQUITY – EQUITABLE REMEDIES – INJUNCTIONS – INJUNCTIONS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSES – TO RESTRAIN UNAUTHORISED ACTS – where the plaintiff and defendants were parties to partnership agreements relating to a number of farms – where defendants submit that the plaintiff’s use of the farms is in breach of his obligation as a partner, notwithstanding the dissolution of the partnerships – whether the defendants are entitled to an injunction to prevent the plaintiff from using the farms

REAL PROPERTY – TORRENS TITLE – JOINT TENANCY AND TENANCY IN COMMON – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff used co-owned farming land for his own benefit – where the defendants allege that the conduct of the plaintiff is an infringement of the rights of the first and third defendants, as co-owners – whether the plaintiff’s conduct is in fact an infringement of the rights of the first and third defendants as co-owners – whether there has been constructive ouster of the first and third defendants from the farms

Biviano v Natoli (1998) 43 NSWLR 695, applied
Chan v Zacharia (1984) 154 CLR 178, cited
Chieco v Evans (1990) BC 900 2356, applied
Dean v MacDowell (1878) 8 Ch D 345, cited

McKay v McKay [2008] NSWSC 177, cited

COUNSEL:

A P Collins for the defendants/applicants
N H Ferrett for the plaintiff/respondent

SOLICITORS:

Ernst & Young Law for the defendants/applicants
HopgoodGanim Lawyers for the plaintiff/respondent

1. For many years, the parties carried on farming activities in the vicinity of Laidley and Mutdapilly.  As will be explained, there are two relevant partnership agreements.  It is common ground that the two partnerships were dissolved some time ago.  The defendants seek injunctions restraining the plaintiff from carrying on farming activities on the remaining farms, either on the basis that he is in breach of his obligations as a partner, during the period when the partnerships are being wound up; or alternatively, because he is in breach of his obligations as a co-owner.

Background

1. The farms near Laidley are referred to as the Berne farm, Jimmy Stone’s farm and Klibbie’s farm (together the home farms); and Plainland Road.  The farms at Mutdapilly are McLean’s farm and Berry’s farm (together, Mutdapilly).  Other farms on which farming activities were conducted by the parties have been sold, and are not relevant for the present application.

1. It seems to be common ground that the plaintiff, the first defendant and the third defendant (who are brothers) are the registered proprietors of Plainland Road as joint tenants; and that they…