NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : BRIDGES v BRIDGES [2010] NSWSC 1287
HEARING DATE(S) : 11-13 October 2010
JUDGMENT DATE : 8 November 2010
JUDGMENT OF : Tamberlin AJ at 1
1. Declare that the cause of action of Harold Rodney George Bridges to recover the land and buildings comprised in Lot 126 in Deposited Plan 750568 located at 480 Chakola Road, Chakola, in the State of New South Wales has been extinguished as against David Barry Bridges and his successors pursuant to s 65(1) of the Limitation Act 1969. DECISION : 2. The amended first cross-claim is allowed with costs to be paid by the second cross-defendant. 3. The second cross-claim is dismissed with costs to be paid by the second cross-claimant. 4. Liberty to apply on two days' notice.
CATCHWORDS : LIMITATION OF ACTION – Old System Title – adverse possession – whether possession for twelve year period – nature of possession – use as family home – acts of possession – intent to possess – entry into possession with consent of documentary owner – whether consent revoked – date of accrual of documentary owner's cause of action – effect of party in possession obtaining valuations to fix a purchase price for the premises
LEGISLATION CITED : Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), ss 27, 28, 65
CATEGORY : Principal judgment
Ace Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Australian Postal Corporation [2010] QCA 55 Bayport Industries Pty Ltd v Watson (2006) V Conv R 54-709 Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor [1996] [HCA] 25; 186 CLR 541 Buckingham Shire County Council v Moran [1990] Ch 623; [1989] All ER 225 Clement v Jones (1909) 8 CLR 133 Edington v Clark [1964] 1 QB 367 CASES CITED : Hagee Ltd v A B Erikson and Larson [1976] 1 QB 209 J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2002] UKHL, 30 [2003] 1 AC 419 Mulcahy v Curramore Pty Ltd [1974] 2 NSWLR 464 Murnane v Findlay [1926] VLR 80 Phillips v Marrickville Municipal Council [2002] NSWSC 396 Ramnarace v Lutchman [2001] 1 WLR 1651 South Maitland Railways Pty Ltd v Satellite Centres Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 716 Whittlesea City Council v Abbatangelo (2009) 259 ALR 56
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