V & L Investments Pty Limited v Turner

The Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia heard an appeal by the respondent, Turner, against a decision of the Court that sustained a claim for possession of land by the appellant, V & L Investments Pty Limited. The appellant was a mortgagee in possession of a property located in Queensland, which had been leased to the respondent. The property was subsequently sold, and the appellant sought possession of the property from the respondent. The respondent did not appear in court, and the appellant was granted judgment for the monies owed and the costs of the proceeding. The appellant did not seek judgment for possession of the land. The respondent, who had been declared bankrupt, did not appoint a trustee in bankruptcy, and the trustee indicated no wish to intervene. The Full Court found that the appellant was entitled to possession of the land as the mortgagee in possession.
The appeal raised questions of law regarding the powers of a mortgagee in possession to obtain possession of land, and whether the Court could make an order for possession when the mortgagee had not sought it. The Court held that the mortgagee in possession had the right to obtain possession of the land and that the Court could make an order for possession even if the mortgagee had not sought it. The Court also held that the absence of the respondent and the bankruptcy of the respondent did not prevent the Court from making an order for possession.
The Full Court held that the appellant was entitled to possession of the land as the mortgagee in possession. The Court noted that the appellant had established a prima facie case for possession, and the respondent had failed to appear or defend the claim. The Court also held that the absence of the respondent and the bankruptcy of the respondent did not prevent the Court from making an order for possession. The Court further held that the appellant was not required to seek judgment for possession of the land, and the Court could make an order for possession even if the appellant had not sought it. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the primary judge was affirmed. The Full Court made an order for possession of the property in favour of the appellant.