Liability for Occupation Rent: 'No Fault Ouster' of a Co-Tenant

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
File version

Version of Record (VoR)

Author(s)
Galloway, Kathrine
Griffith University Author(s)
Primary Supervisor
Other Supervisors
Editor(s)
Date
2011
Size
File type(s)
Location
License
Abstract

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.

Journal Title

Australian Property Law Journal

Conference Title
Book Title
Edition
Volume

19

Issue

1

Thesis Type
Degree Program
School
DOI
Patent number
Funder(s)
Grant identifier(s)
Rights Statement
Rights Statement

© 2010 Lexis Nexis Australia. The attached file is reproduced here in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the journal website for access to the definitive, published version.

Item Access Status
Note
Access the data
Related item(s)
Subject

Law and legal studies

Private law and civil obligations

Persistent link to this record
Citation

Galloway, K, Liability for Occupation Rent: 'No Fault Ouster' of a Co-Tenant, Australian Property Law Journal, 2011, 19, pp. 23-29

Collections