Wright v Hamilton Island Enterprises Ltd; ACN 055 389 725 P/L v Hamilton Island Enterprises Ltd

Case [2003] QCA 160

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Wright & Anor v Hamilton Island Enterprises Ltd;
ACN 055 389 725 P/L & Ors v Hamilton Island Enterprises Ltd [2003] QCA 160

PARTIES:

JACKIE WRIGHT
(first plaintiff/respondent)
PLANLEY PTY LTD ACN 064 736 581
(second plaintiff/respondent)
v
HAMILTON ISLAND ENTERPRISES LIMITED
ACN 009 946 909
(defendant/appellant)


ACN 055 389 725 PTY LTD
(first plaintiff/first respondent)
LOUIS PHERHAD
(second plaintiff/second respondent)
VIVIENNE PHERHAD
(third plaintiff/third respondent)
v
HAMILTON ISLAND ENTERPRISES LIMITED
ACN 009 946 909
(defendant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 11236 of 2001
SC No 8981 of 1996
SC No 8982 of 1996

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal – Further Orders

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

Judgment delivered 14 February 2003
Amended Further Orders delivered 17 April 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 August 2002

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Mackenzie J
Judgment of the Court

FURTHER ORDERS:

1.  In the appeal concerning SC No 8981 of 1996:
Allow in part the appeal from the order of Mullins J of 15 November 2001 only to the extent of  adding a further order that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the hearing of 30 October 2001 to be assessed; and
No order as to the costs of the appeal

2.  In the appeal concerning SC No 8982 of 1996:
Allow in part the appeal from the order of Mullins J of 15 November 2001 only to the extent of adding a further order that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the hearing of 30 October 2001 to be assessed; and
No order as to the costs of the appeal

COUNSEL:

P A Keane QC, with D Logan, for the appellant
M D Hinson SC for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Gadens Lawyers for the appellant
O'Shea Corser & Wadley for the respondents

  1. THE COURT:  The further orders in this matter delivered on 21 March 2003 are amended and replaced by the following amended further orders:

In the appeal concerning SC No 8981 of 1996:

(1)         Allow in part the appeal from the order of Mullins J of 15 November 2001 only to the extent of adding a further order that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the hearing of 30 October 2001 to be assessed.

(2)         No order as to the costs of the appeal.

In the appeal concerning SC No 8982 of 1996:

(3)         Allow in part the appeal from the order of Mullins J of 15 November 2001 only to the extent of adding a further order that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the hearing of 30 October 2001 to be assessed.

(4)         No order as to the costs of the appeal.

Details
AGLC
Wright v Hamilton Island Enterprises Ltd; ACN 055 389 725 P/L v Hamilton Island Enterprises Ltd [2003] QCA 160
Case
[2003] QCA 160
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involves two appeals before the Supreme Court of Queensland's Court of Appeal, concerning land ownership and usage on Hamilton Island. The plaintiffs in both appeals, Jackie Wright, Planley Pty Ltd, Louis Phedrad, and Vivienne Phedrad, are challenging the defendant, Hamilton Island Enterprises Limited, regarding the nature and extent of their property rights. The first appeal originated from SC No 8981 of 1996, while the second appeal originated from SC No 8982 of 1996. Both appeals were consolidated before the Court of Appeal. The primary legal issues before the court were the interpretation of the terms of the leases, the nature of the plaintiffs' rights in relation to the leased land, and the validity of certain actions taken by the defendant.

The Court of Appeal considered the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on the interpretation of the lease agreements and the rights and obligations of the parties under those agreements. The court examined the terms of the leases, the history of the transactions, and the conduct of the parties to determine the nature of the plaintiffs' rights. The court also addressed the issue of whether the defendant had acted in a manner inconsistent with the plaintiffs' rights under the leases. The court found that the leases granted the plaintiffs a proprietary interest in the land, akin to a lease for a term of years, rather than a mere license to occupy the land. The court also found that the defendant had acted inconsistently with the plaintiffs' rights under the leases.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals in part, amending the orders of Mullins J to include a further order that the respondents pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the hearing of 30 October 2001 to be assessed. The court did not make any order as to the costs of the appeal. The amended further orders were delivered on 17 April 2003, replacing the previous orders delivered on 21 March 2003. The court's decision clarified the nature of the plaintiffs' rights under the leases and confirmed that the defendant had acted inconsistently with those rights.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.