Liability for occupation rent: 'no fault ouster' of a co-tenant
Galloway, Kate (2010) Liability for occupation rent: 'no fault ouster' of a co-tenant. Australian Property Law Journal, 19 (1). pp. 23-29.
|Microsoft Word (Submitted Version) - Repository staff only|
|PDF (Published Version) - Repository staff only - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader|
Before the 2009 decision in Callow v Rupchev, there were three circumstances in which an occupation fee would be payable by a co-owner to another co-owner. In Callow v Rupchev the NSW Court of Appeal found a further circumstance in which occupation rent can be claimed — cases of relationship breakdown where there is no 'attributable fault' by either party. This further ground is to be distinguished from actual ouster and constructive ouster. This article explores the context in which this decision was made, and reviews previous decisions relating to claims for occupation rent occurring within a relationship breakdown. To the extent that the doctrine of ouster has traditionally represented a particular understanding of the nature of an undivided proprietary interest inland, this article assesses whether this approach flags a transition in our understanding of the concept of property to mirror a more contemporary picture of society.
|Item Type:||Article (Refereed Research - C1)|
|FoR Codes:||18 LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES > 1801 Law > 180124 Property Law (excl Intellectual Property Law) @ 100%|
|SEO Codes:||94 LAW, POLITICS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES > 9499 Other Law, Politics and Community Services > 949999 Law, Politics and Community Services not elsewhere classified @ 100%|
|Deposited On:||17 Mar 2011 10:39|
|Last Modified:||14 Aug 2012 14:41|
Last 12 Months: 0
Repository Staff Only: item control page