Australian Legislation Laws on Occupation Rent Payment
Introduction
Occupation rent payment in Australia depends extensively on the division of rental income and expenses between the co-owners. Usually, spouses share the rental income and expenses in accordance with legal interests. Consequently, Australian legal laws ensure that rental joint co-owners hold an equal interest in the rental property, while at the same time tenants in common may hold an unequal interest in the property. In most cases, this variation depends if the co-owners are joint, common tenants or partnership on a rental property. Moreover, occupation rent in the event of a separation or a divorce dispute in the marital home may have a detrimental impact on one of the spouses.
…show more content…
Accordingly, the basis of this law implies that each co-owner has the right to exercise the possession of the whole property and it is deemed inappropriate to subject a particular co-owner with the burdening claim for compensation at the suit of the other co-owner, having failed to exercise the same right. However, the Western Australian Tenancies Act 1987 indicates that an occupation rent may be determined as a dispute if the occupying co-owner prescribes for settlement of the dispute through an application made under the aforementioned act. As indicated, the occupation rent dispute as the concept of ownership in the Australian property social phenomenon is an emerging issue since the property laws solely focus on the enclosure and the right of exclusion. In this case, it has extensively benefited the privatization of property to maximize profits . Essentially, the occupation rent Modified Shared Equity Policy mandates that the spouses share the same ownership of a rental property, who in this case are referred to as tenants in common. As tenants in common, they are a couple who rent a house together and both their names appear in the rental agreement. On the contrary, the Australian system of property distribution at the end …show more content…
Accordingly, the court possesses an exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine an occupation rent case since it is not justifiable by any other form of court or tribunal. In the event of a magistrate’s court ruling, the registrar of the court’s command may exercise power with respect to the application of the occupation rent dispute by a spouse. Furthermore, the Registrar must refer an application to the director of the inspection while referring to the investigation report. Moreover, an application made by a particular co-owner of a rental property under the Western Australian Residential Tenancies Act may be approved if the application is made to a court nearest to the location of the rental property premises. Under such circumstances, the dissatisfaction of a co-owner may appeal to a magistrate against the decision made by the registrar. The appeal may arise in cases where the rental property is procured under the title of the co-owner who does not provide any purchase price or any other financial donation to the household. Also, it may arise in the event of acquisition under the name of a co-owner making some part of the financial contribution indirectly to the rental property. More importantly, various factors determine whether a Court may opt to award an occupation rent to a particular spouse. The court’s occupational rent
La Trobe Capital & Mortgage Corp Ltd v Hay Property Consultants Pty Ltd (2011) 190 FCR 299
The need for the law to recognise possessory and equitable interests in land under a system of registration of title is a contested issue in Australia. The term ‘title’ means the extent of ownership over property as recognised by the legal system. For the purpose of this essay, a system of registration of title means the Torrens title system. The protection of possessory and equitable interests in Western Australia will be discussed, with reference to the Torrens title system and real property. It will be argued that there is still a need for the law to recognise equitable interests in land, however, the Torrens framework does remove the need for the law for the law to recognise possessory interests, in particular the doctrine of adverse possession.
Britain is currently undergoing the biggest overhaul of the welfare system since its introduction. The welfare system was first established with the assurance that people less fortunate would be able to have a standard of living that would ensure equality. But the recent amendments brought into place by the current government’s legislations may see the biggest divide between rich and poor since the days of the work houses. How will claimants be affected and who will be affected the most is an issue that will be examined more closely. The current government believes that Britain has become a welfare dependant state and according to BBC news (2013) 2.49 million are currently unemployed; those who are unemployed will also have entitlement to housing benefit and council tax benefit. All claimants will be affected by what will be known as Universal Credits. Universal credits will combine all existing benefits in to one payment; the amount a household can claim in welfare will be capped, this new system could have a catastrophic impact on people’s lives. Furthermore the government does not believe that a person should have full housing benefit if the home in which they reside has extra bedrooms, so introduction of the Bedroom Tax was implemented April 2013. The National Housing Federation website has given a detailed description of who will be affected and the implications it may have on tenants. But already only three months in to the bedroom tax and it has been reported “more than fifty thousand people have fallen behind on their rent and face eviction” Independent (2013). This report is going to concentrate on the affects the aptly named Bedroom Tax is having on people’s ...
It was found in the primary court that Helen was not properly appointed as a director of LWC (Beck v L W Furniture Consolidated (Aust) Pty Limited (2011) NSWSC 235). This was not disputed in the Court of Appeal or the High Court (Weinstock, 48). In reaching this decision, Barrett J considered multiple factors, including Amiram’s status an...
Rather, the Court finds and rules that the duty to pay the bi-annual assessment is an equitable servitude. It is the rule in the Commonwealth that a previous grantee's promise to make annual payments connected with land may impose on the granted premises an equitable servitude enforceable against the subsequent owner taking title with actual or constructive notice of the obligation, even where the equitable servitude calls for the payment of money. It is an indisputable fact that Plaintiffs' took title to the Property with full knowledge of the existence of the Association; moreover, they certainly had constructive—if not actual—notice of their obligations to the Association. Therefore, there exists an equitable servitude that requires Plaintiffs to pay the assessments as the previous owners
Housing Affordability in Australia has become the focus point for urban planners in recent years. In particular, South East Queensland (SEQ) has experienced significant pressure as the demand for property and affordable dwellings increases and population growth in the region continues. The issue has come to the forefront in discussions for local governments in the region and there is a real need to address the problem of housing affordability. The subject of affordability is complex and is contributed to by a number of factors including the impost created by Council processes, which is the scope of the HAF-T5 Project.
The distribution of wealth in Australia by Frank Stilwell & David Primrose (2007) http://evatt.labor.net.au/publications/papers/226.html accessed on May 17, 2011
The first issues presented in this case study is that of the mountain property that Martin owned with some of his friends as joint tenants with a right of survivorship. A joint tenancy with right of survivorship (JTWROS) can be a common way of owning property between related and unrelated individuals ensuring that upon one’s death, their share of the property is equally divided up among the remaining joint tenants (Segal, 1998). The first conundrum involving this property and the laws pertaining to JTWROS is the issue of Martin’s friend and cotenant Peter, who stated in
Meta Description: Modifying your pet’s behavior can be challenging, but it can be accomplished. Here’s a quick rundown of techniques that work and how to avoid mistakes.
The current system of free market has lead landlords to abuse tenants. This practice, called ‘gouging’, is described by
The purpose of this paper is to analyze a specific, hypothetical employment situation encountered and to include the information regarding employment conflicts, questions, grievances, lawsuits, etc., in terms of how the situation was handled or resolved. Employment conflicts are a constant issue everyday in any organization; it is how you handle them both legally and professionally that counts.
Noteworthy case resolved by LTA 1954 is “Horne & Meredith Properties Ltd v Cox and another” [2014] EWCA Civ 423. Miss Billingsley and Mr Cox were the tenants of 7A Whitburn Street, in Shropshire. They occupy those premises for the purposes of their business. They first started occupying the property under a lease granted in 1981 which has been later renewed. When the current lease was due for renewal under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 the landlord opposed it on two grounds.
S. Panesar, 'Quantifying beneficial interest in joint ownership disputes: is the constructive trust changing?' [2012] CONVPL. L.J 59, 67
Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) v. K (FC) (Appellant) Fornah (FC) (Appellant) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2006] UKHL 46
Victorian Stevedoring & General. Contracting Co Pty Ltd & Meakes v Dignan (1931) 46 CLR 73