Chirio Holdings Pty Ltd, Re [1992] QLC 328

• I ! ,. ' . :1 "2_1'.! ' .. ' .. ----Jt,1-- Re: In the matter of the liability of Special Lease No. 22/47055 to forfeiture . Lessee: Chirio Holdings Pty Ltd as trustee for the Chirio Family Trust. (Hearing at Atherton) DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 5th March, 1992. Chirio Holdings Pty Limited as trustee for the Chirio Family Trust was granted a Special Lease under Section 198(1)(a) of the Land Act 1962 for a term of 30 years from 27th February, 1985, for residential purposes. One of the conditions of the lease was: 11 The Lessee shall within two years from the commencement of the term of the lease and to the satisfaction of the Minister erect structural improvements on the leased land of a value of not less than $20,000. II By letter dated 11th March, 1991, the matter was referred to the Land Court for determination of the question of liability to forfeiture for non-compliance with the above quoted condition. By Notice dated 8th January, 1992, addressed to Chirio Holdings Pty Ltd, P.O. Box 128, Manunda, Queensland 4870, the lessee was advised that the matter would be brought before the Land Court at Atherton at 11 :30 a.m. on Thursday, 20th February, 1992, for hearing. When the matter was called on for hearing there was no appearance on behalf of the lessee. [1992] QLC 328 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 Mr D. Grealy appeared on behalf of the Crown and cailed Land Inspector Mr M.L. Donnelly to give evidence in this matter. Through Mr Donnelly, Mr Grealy tendered a report on performance of development conditions on the subject special lease which indicated that, apart from some clearing of regrowth and noxious weeds, there had been no improvements effected on the land and certainly no structural improvements as required under the condition of the lease. Mr Grealy also tendered copies of four (4) letters from the Lands Department file dating back to 2nd August, 1988, advising the lessee that the development condition concerning structural improvements had not been complied with. He also tendered a notice issued by the Minister for Land Management pursuant to the provisions of Section 297(1) of the Land Act, dated 16th July, 1990, advising the lessee that he intended to refer to the Land Court the question of liability to forfeiture of the lease for failure to comply with the improvement condition. There was no response by the lessee to any of this correspondence and none of it was returned unclaimed. All four letters and the Section 297 notice were -addressed to the lessee at P.O . Box 128, Manunda, Qld 4870. Under the provisions of Section 381 (2) of the Land Act, any notice required to be given or served by the Minister, may be sent by post addressed to a person at his last known place of address. Mr Grealy submits that the Minister has complied with this requirement. The Notice of Case coming on before the Land Court dated 8th January, 1992, was sent from the Land Court Registry addressed to the lessee at the same address as was the Section 297 notice and it has not been returned to the Registry unclaimed. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 I am satisfied that service of the Notice of reference to the Land Court pursuant to Section 297 has been given in accordance with the requirements of the Land Act and, in the absence of the return unclaimed of the notice of hearing, that the lessee was aware of the matter coming before the Court and has failed to attend or be represented. The evidence clearly establishes that the lessee has failed to comply with the condition of the lease to erect structural improvements on the land. Therefore I find that the lessee has failed to perform the conditions of the lease the subject of the reference from the Minister, within the time prescribed and that the liability of the lease to forfeiture for such failure is established. (J.J. Trickett) Member of the Land Court. -- 3 of 3 --