Strel v Cordia

The proceedings in Strel v Cordia arose in the Supreme Court of Queensland, with the plaintiff, Strel, seeking to obtain title to a property in Brisbane. The property was registered in the name of Cordia, who was the original vendor to Strel under a contract of sale. Strel claimed that he had performed all obligations under the contract, including full payment, but that the property had not been transferred to his name. Cordia disputed the claim, arguing that Strel had not completed the purchase, and that Cordia had a possessory title to the property. Cordia also brought a cross-claim against another party, who had been using the property, alleging adverse possession. The cross-claimant argued that they had permission from the plaintiff to use the property and that they did not intend to claim adverse possession.
The central legal issues in the case were whether the evidence supported an inference that Strel had performed his obligations under the contract and whether the cross-claimant had acquired a possessory title through adverse possession. The court had to determine the nature of the dealings between Strel and Cordia and whether the cross-claimant's use of the property was permissive or adverse. The court also needed to decide whether the cross-claimant had formed a view that Strel had abandoned the property and had no right to give permission to occupy.
The court held that the available evidence did not support an inference that Strel had performed his obligations under the contract. The court found that Strel had not paid the purchase price in full and that there was no written evidence of a contract. The court also held that the cross-claimant had not acquired a possessory title through adverse possession. The court found that the cross-claimant's use of the property was permissive, and that they had acted under the belief that they had the permission of Strel to occupy the property. The court found that the cross-claimant had not formed a view that Strel had abandoned the property.
The court ordered that Strel's claim for title to the property be dismissed, and that Cordia retain possession of the property. The court also dismissed the cross-claim brought by Cordia against the cross-claimant. The court found that the cross-claimant's use of the property was permissive and did not amount to adverse possession. The court did not make any orders as to the relationship between Cordia and the cross-claimant.