NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Hardy v Sidoti [2020] NSWSC 1057 Hearing dates: 29 and 30 July; 6 August 2020 Decision date: 12 August 2020 Jurisdiction: Equity - Real Property List Before: Kunc J Decision: Plaintiff's claim for possessory title upheld Catchwords: LAND LAW - Adverse possession – Actual possession – Claim to remnant of "dunny lane" incorporated into plaintiff's garden – Land converted from old system title to limited title during period of possession but before limitation period expired – Whether plaintiff's rights survived conversion – Whether possessory title provisions of Real Property Act applicable to limited title land – Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), s 27(2), s 65(1) – Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), s 28T(8), s 45C(2) Legislation Cited: Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) Cases Cited: Braye v Tarnawskyj (As administrator of the Estate of the Late KING) & Anor (2019) 19 BPR 39,213; [2019] NSWSC 277 Powell v McFarlane (1979) 38 P & CR 452 South Maitland Railways Pty Ltd v Satellite Centres of Australia Pty Ltd (2009) 14 BPR 26,823; [2009] NSWSC 716 Texts Cited: Muir, Lesley, "Shady Acres – Politicians, Developers and Sydney's Public Transport Scandals 1872-1895", Royal Australian Historical Society, Halstead Press, 2016 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Christopher Luke Hardy (Plaintiff)
Joseph Geoffrey Sidoti (First Defendant) Natalie Martinoski (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel:
J Van Aalst (Plaintiff) L A Walsh (First and Second Defendant)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate