//
[2015] QSC 239
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of Queensland
2015-08-20
Boddice J
Original judgment source is linked above.
No appearance for the plaintiff, the plaintiff's submissions were heard on the papers
[1] By application filed 28 July 2015, the plaintiff applied for an order that it be given leave pursuant to r 913(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) to issue an enforcement warrant for possession of land situated at 76 Shipper Drive, Coomera in the State of Queensland. The warrant was sought against each of the defendants and the occupants of the land.
[2] On 23 June 2015 the plaintiff obtained an order for possession of the said land. Despite being served with the order, none of the defendants have complied with the order. It appears a person other than one of the defendants is presently in occupation of the land. The identity of that occupant is unknown.
[3] The land in question consists of a marina berth and an associated storage shed. It is not residential property. However, as it appears that a person other than one of the defendants is presently in occupation of the land under a lease or tenancy agreement, leave is necessary pursuant to r 913(2) of the UCPR.
[4] The plaintiff has validly obtained an order for possession of the land. The plaintiff suffers ongoing loss and damage by reason of non-compliance with the order delivering up possession of that land. There is no reason why the plaintiff ought not receive the benefit of that order.
[5] I am satisfied the plaintiff should be granted leave to issue the enforcement warrant for possession of the said land.
[6] I am satisfied it is appropriate to determine the application without an oral hearing.
[7] I make order in terms of the draft which I initial and place with the papers.
Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited
Ruddle and Ors [2015] QSC 239