Topspin Pty Ltd v Minister for Lands

[1995] QLC 29

[1995] QLC 29

 

 

LAND COURT

BRISBANE

28 April 1995

Re:     Liability to Forfeiture
  Special Lease 100356
  Land Act 1962 - s.297

Lessee:  Topspin Pty Ltd

DECISION
           By letter dated 20 October 1994 the Minister, having reasons to believe that Special Lease 100356 was liable to forfeiture for failure of the lessee to comply with certain conditions of the lease, referred the matter to the Court for hearing and determination.
           The reference was made under the provisions of s.297 of the Land Act 1962.  Notice of his intention to make the reference was given the lessee - Topspin Pty
Ltd - on 15 September 1994.  Such notice was forwarded by certified mail.
           The notice stated that it is alleged that the following conditions of lease have not been complied with -

"D7The lessee shall within twelve (12) months from the commencement of the term of the lease establish an industry approved by the Minister administering the Industrial Development Act 1963 on the leased land.

D8The lessee shall within five (5) years from the commencement of the term of the lease and to the satisfaction of the Minister administering the Industrial Development Act 1963 and the Minister administering the Land Act 1962 construct factory buildings of not less than 830 square metres and expend a capital outlay of not less than $280000.00 on buildings and plant on the leased land.

D17The lessee shall within the time specified by and to the satisfaction of the Council of the City of the Gold Coast;

(a)fill and/or grade the leased land to the levels   determined by the said Council;

(b)implement a scheme of landscaping and   beautification of the leased land;  and

(c)provide off-street parking facilities on the leased   land to cater for both employees and visitors motor   vehicles.

D55The lessee shall within the first six (6) months of the said term   commence construction of buildings on the leased land.

D56The lessee shall within the first twelve (12) months of the said   term expend a sum of not less than $280000.00 on buildings    and plant on the leased land.  "

The said lease was granted for a term of 30 years from 1 December 1991 subject to conditions including those specified in the notice given the lessee pursuant to the provisions of s.297. 
           The evidence before the Court shows that the lessee was given an extension of time -  until 30 June 1993 - within which to comply with the particular conditions.  By letters dated 18 October 1993, 15 March 1994 and 22 June 1994 the Department sought from the lessee its intentions with respect to compliance with the said conditions.  On 14 September 1994 an inspection of the site by Mr B Van Hees, registered valuer in the employ of the Department of Lands, revealed that the land was vacant.  The proceedings to forfeit the lease were then initiated. 
           Mr Van Hees was called for the purpose of verifying the conclusions he reached on inspection of the land on 14 September 1994.  Having sworn to the accuracy of that memorandum (Exhibit 7) he said that a further inspection of the site carried out on 18 April 1995 revealed that the relevant conditions had not been satisfied.  The land remained vacant.
           I am satisfied on the evidence that the lessee has not complied with the conditions specified in the notice given by the Minister.
           I accordingly find that liability of the lease to forfeiture for failure to comply with the conditions of lease is established.

President of the Land Court