Police warrant
Posted by anze89
But what the f*ck had they to do in Vietnam anyway? Besides I don't want everyone to be nice to each other - that would make the world far too boring. I just think that if we have f*cked with other cultures/countries/whatever all along though our history, we can't complain if others strike back. It's quite simple. If you lean out of the window too far, you might fall off. The decision if you are a hero or an assshole, terrorist or freedom fighter just depends on your point of view - it is always the winner who writes down what's history. I wonder how they will look at us in, say, 500 years.
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
"Did anyone say "We are sorry for Hiroshima?" I never heard about it."
Well be 100% there, who started that part of WW2? USA, or Japan? Who attacked who first? Whod ropped the first bomb?
We KNOW if the Japanese didnt attack USA, then that never would have happened. USA did not start it, but they found a way of finishing it quickly didnt they? It is the Japanese fault Hiroshmia happened, they started the war, and surely they didnt think that USA would lie down and not put up a fight? Of ALL the countires in the WHOLE world, they picked the most powerfull to start a war with? Really, be honest, how @#$%& STUPID is that? Britain struggled during WW2, everyone knows that. USA didnt struggle nearly as much. They could roll off hundreads of new Tanks per day, 50 odd planes. Why would anyone pick a fight with such a powerfull country?
"It is the whole western world that always uses double standards and still thinks in terms of "white=supreme race".
One of my best friends is called Hassan right (no, not the one on this forum :P)
And he text me on Septemeber 11th after everything had happened, and repeated what the news reportas had said. How much of a horrible tradegy this was.
THEN after he found out it was Osama who was resposible, eh changed his views and said "Well the USA had it coming, they deserved it"
How much of an arsehole can one person be? Its ok, until its his relgion doing it, then its fine.
"It is the whole western world that always uses double standards and still thinks in terms of "white=supreme race".
What? Everyone in the western world? Sorry to use strong lanuage, but thats bullshit there Vades. Some of my closest and best friends are Asian, (china to be exact), and that dont make a blind bit of difference to me!
Until recently i hadnt noticed how many non-whites there are in Dundee alone. And the only reason i noticed is cos one of my asian friends pointed it out to me!
By saying that the "whole western world" bevlies this, is a stupid thing to say vader, cos u know, i know, and everyone one knows, thats not true
Everyone is equal, all races, all colours, all nationalities.
When i said i agreed with the action in Afghanistan, i didnt mean against civilians, i emtn agsisnt the people resposnsible for Sep11!
If these people were from UK, Scotland, f*ck, even dundee, i would have the same view!
that dont sound like Vader who said that!
Racing Is Life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting
Jesus may be able to heal the sick and bring the dead back to life, but he can't do shît for low fps
Well be 100% there, who started that part of WW2? USA, or Japan? Who attacked who first? Whod ropped the first bomb?
We KNOW if the Japanese didnt attack USA, then that never would have happened. USA did not start it, but they found a way of finishing it quickly didnt they? It is the Japanese fault Hiroshmia happened, they started the war, and surely they didnt think that USA would lie down and not put up a fight? Of ALL the countires in the WHOLE world, they picked the most powerfull to start a war with? Really, be honest, how @#$%& STUPID is that? Britain struggled during WW2, everyone knows that. USA didnt struggle nearly as much. They could roll off hundreads of new Tanks per day, 50 odd planes. Why would anyone pick a fight with such a powerfull country?
"It is the whole western world that always uses double standards and still thinks in terms of "white=supreme race".
One of my best friends is called Hassan right (no, not the one on this forum :P)
And he text me on Septemeber 11th after everything had happened, and repeated what the news reportas had said. How much of a horrible tradegy this was.
THEN after he found out it was Osama who was resposible, eh changed his views and said "Well the USA had it coming, they deserved it"
How much of an arsehole can one person be? Its ok, until its his relgion doing it, then its fine.
"It is the whole western world that always uses double standards and still thinks in terms of "white=supreme race".
What? Everyone in the western world? Sorry to use strong lanuage, but thats bullshit there Vades. Some of my closest and best friends are Asian, (china to be exact), and that dont make a blind bit of difference to me!
Until recently i hadnt noticed how many non-whites there are in Dundee alone. And the only reason i noticed is cos one of my asian friends pointed it out to me!
By saying that the "whole western world" bevlies this, is a stupid thing to say vader, cos u know, i know, and everyone one knows, thats not true
Everyone is equal, all races, all colours, all nationalities.
When i said i agreed with the action in Afghanistan, i didnt mean against civilians, i emtn agsisnt the people resposnsible for Sep11!
If these people were from UK, Scotland, f*ck, even dundee, i would have the same view!
that dont sound like Vader who said that!
Racing Is Life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting
Jesus may be able to heal the sick and bring the dead back to life, but he can't do shît for low fps
god my spelling sucks :|
Racing Is Life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting
Jesus may be able to heal the sick and bring the dead back to life, but he can't do shît for low fps
Racing Is Life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting
Jesus may be able to heal the sick and bring the dead back to life, but he can't do shît for low fps
Just one thing: Nothing (again NOTHING) justifies the use of atom bombs. No previous attack, not even a thousand Pearl Habours can do that. Bomb them in any conventional way - nuke them to the stoneage if neccessary - but atomic weapons is another story. Having used it means having crossed a boundary, having released powers no one can possibly control. It is more than just cynical to say the Japanese are to blame for Hiroshima. This end does not justify the means, in no way. It is like someone hitting me and I go and shoot the person. This is a complete new quality in warefare and one must not be surprised if others do not refrain from going a step further. If they answer conventional fire with atomic assaults, what will the next country do to amswer carpet bombing?
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
There is evidence available to suggest that the US were perfectly well informed that the Pearl Harbour bombings were going to take place - and that they let it happen so they could justify the atom bombing to end the war once and for all. I'm not suggesting that it's true, of course, but it's worth considering. I can't imagine they'd let Pearl Harbour be destroyed like that though...
HISTORIC BTCC VIDEOS
HISTORIC BTCC VIDEOS
This is exactly my point: things are not neccessarily like you were told at history lessons at school. Every coin has two sides and it is not always the enemy alone that uses propaganda to manipulate the masses. We are in no ways better in this respect. The only difference is that we can say "hey, I believe they are maipulating us" without disappearing behind prison walls. But this does not mean that we know the truth. I don't want to start a discussion on conspiracy theories now - the net is full of loonies who have "proof" that Elvis is still alive, Monroe was killed by the CIA and aliens are running a secret base at Area 51. That's not the point. The point is that we can never be sure who is good and who is not. And we must know that all Secret Services in the world are always at least two steps ahead of us and (most likely) our governments, too. The truth might be somewhere out there, but then we must all be somewhere else.
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
Baldrick, does it have to be this way?
Our valued friendship ending
with me cutting you into long strips and telling the Prince that you
walked over a very sharp cattlegrid in an extremely heavy hat?
LS's Tip of the week
ESSENTIAL OILS aren't essential unless you're an engine, a gearbox or a twat
Our valued friendship ending
with me cutting you into long strips and telling the Prince that you
walked over a very sharp cattlegrid in an extremely heavy hat?
LS's Tip of the week
ESSENTIAL OILS aren't essential unless you're an engine, a gearbox or a twat
CATTLEGRID????
Okay, have a look at an exerpt from the Chapter Three - Review of the Fences Act 1968[\b]
3.1 Most suggestions for detailed amendments to the Fences Act 1968 (Vic.) made in submissions to the Committee were aimed at meeting public expectations or clarifying the legal position of parties so as to expedite negotiated outcomes. Other amendments considered in this Chapter have been prompted by the example of legislation in other States.
Definitions
3.2 The Fences Act contains only three definitions.[1] 'Dividing fence' is defined as a 'fence separating the lands of different occupiers'. The term 'occupier' is defined to include any person in actual occupation of, or entitled as owner to occupy, any land purchased or alienated from the Crown and also 'the holder of a right to occupy a residence area in respect of land under the Land Act 1958'. Expressly excluded from the definition of 'occupier' is:
any person in occupation of or entitled to occupy land under a license under the Mineral Resources Development Act 1990; or
any person in the occupation of land held by yearly license under any Act relating to the sale and occupation of Crown lands which has been in force or comes into force.
The expression 'to repair' is defined to include 'to trim keep and maintain a live fence'.
Fence and Dividing Fence
3.3 Notably, the Fences Act contains no definition of 'fence', leaving this word to have its ordinary English meaning. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a 'fence' to be:[2]
A railing or barrier constructed of posts of any of various materials connected by wire, planks, etc., used to enclose and prevent entry to and exit from a field, yard, etc.
The definition of 'fence' refers the reader to the word 'live' where 'live fence', which originated in the United States, means 'a hedge'.[3] Another definition of 'fence' is contained in the Macquarie Dictionary, which defines the word to mean: 'an enclosure or barrier, usually of wire or wood, as around or along a field, garden, etc.'[4] Neither the Oxford nor the Macquarie definitions in their terms contemplate a vegetative barrier within the definition of 'fence'; however, the definition of 'to repair' in the Fences Act shows clearly that live fences are fences for the purposes of the Act.
3.4 One submission lamented the lack of a definition of fence in the Act and saw the inclusion of such a definition as desirable.[5]
3.5 There is a dearth of statutory definitions of the word 'fence' in Victorian legislation. While Part I of the Land Act 1958 (Vic.), which deals with 'Crown Lands Generally', contains a definition of 'fence', this prescribes four kinds of fence in a manner similar to the pre-1968 list of 'sufficient fences' in the Fences Acts.[6]
3.6 The New South Wales, Queensland and Northern Territory Acts all contain a definition of 'fence' which stands behind the definition of 'dividing fence'.[7] Only in South Australia is the ordinary meaning of the word 'fence' relied upon. The New South Wales Act provides perhaps the best model. It defines a 'fence' as follows:[8]
'fence' means a structure, ditch or embankment, or a hedge or similar vegetative barrier, enclosing or bounding land, whether or not continuous or extending along the whole boundary separating the land of adjoining owners, and includes:
a) any gate, cattlegrid or apparatus necessary for the operation of the fence; and
b) any natural or artificial watercourse which separates the land of adjoining owners; and
c) any foundation or support necessary for the support and maintenance of the fence,
but does not include a retaining wall or a wall which is part of a house, garage or other building.
3.7 In the Victorian Supreme Court case of City of Greater Geelong v. Herd,[9] where the issue of what constitutes a fence arose under planning law rather than the Fences Act, Batt J. held that a fence, in the ordinary sense, has two essential features: that of enclosing or barring an area; and that of being located along or serving to define the boundary of an area. It that case it was held that a structure erected to bar a view, which did not bar access at ground level, did not run for anything like the full length of the boundary, and did not serve to define a boundary (because an existing conventional fence already served that purpose), was a not a fence under the relevant planning scheme.
3.8 The Committee considers that the proposed Dividing Fences and Boundaries Act would benefit from the inclusion of a comprehensive definition of 'dividing fence' and recommends that this be achieved by the amalgamation of the definition in the present Fences Act 1968 (Vic.) with the New South Wales and Northern Territory definitions of 'fence' and the principles enunciated in City of Greater Geelong v. Herd.[10]
Recommendation 7
The proposed Dividing Fences and Boundaries Act should define the term 'dividing fence' to mean 'a construction, ditch or embankment, or a hedge or other vegetative barrier, enclosing or barring access to land, whether or not continuous or extending along the whole of a boundary, but serving to define the boundary of or separating the lands of different owners, whether or not located on the title boundary, and includes:
a) any gate, cattlegrid or apparatus necessary for the operation of the fence; and
b) any natural or artificial watercourse which is ordinarily sufficient to prevent trespass by persons or stock entering on foot; and
c) any foundation or support necessary for the support and maintenance of the construction,
but does not include a retaining wall or the wall of any building.
3.9 The Committee's definition excludes retaining walls because these structures serve quite different purposes from fences. They generally exist for the purpose of stabilising the face of land or providing structural support for material on and below the surface of land and not for the purpose of separating the land of adjoining occupiers.[11] The rights and obligations of neighbouring landowners concerning the erection and maintenance of retaining walls are best governed by the common law doctrine of support to land and therefore are not properly the subject of dividing fences legislation.
Owner and Occupier
3.10 Liability to contribute to the construction or repair of dividing fences under the Fences Act rests with the 'occupiers of adjoining lands'.[12] By section 3, 'occupier'
includes any person who is--
in the actual occupation of or entitled as owner to occupy any land purchased from the Crown under contract of sale or alienated from the Crown by grant lease or licence; and
the holder of a right to occupy a residence area in respect of land under the Land Act 1958 whether covered by a mining licence under the Mineral Resources Development Act 1990 or not -
but does not include--
any person in the occupation of or entitled to occupy land under a licence under the Mineral Resources Development Act 1990; or
any person in the occupation of land held by yearly licence under any Act relating to the sale and occupation of Crown lands which has been in force or comes into force.
The term 'owner' is not defined and is used only in sections 24 and 27, although contribution as between landlord and tenant is the subject of section 10. Section 27 exempts the owner, the occupier and their agents from the offence of snaring and trapping vermin within 11 metres of a vermin-proof fence. Section 24 effectively extends liability to contribute to the construction or repair of a vermin-proof fence to an owner, if the occupier is unable to pay. This special situation is discussed below.[13]
3.11 The only other State or Territory in Australia where liability for fencing costs attaches to occupiers rather than owners is the Australian Capital Territory,[14] where the use of the term 'occupier' is consistent with the distinctive system of land tenure in that Territory, in that most property is held on a lease from the Crown. In the absence of any feature distinguishing land tenure in Victoria from that of other States, there would appear to be no particular rationale for the different approach taken in Victoria.
3.12 Victoria's divergence from the approach in other States occurred in 1874, prior to which liability to contribute to the cost of fencing attached to owners of land.[15] The change in focus from owners to occupiers occurred with the enactment of The Fences Statute 1874 and followed more than two years of disputation between Upper and Lower Houses of the Parliament on unrelated matters. When the first form of the Bill was introduced in 1871,[16] its purpose was said to be to extend the reach of the Act from freehold owners to selectors who had elected to purchase land from the Crown in accordance with the provisions of Part II of the Land Act 1862 (Vic.).[17] Those provisions enabled selectors to enter what was in effect a credit contract, whereby the selector paid a deposit and annual rental[18] and was considered a lessee until final payment was made. Although they were not owners, selectors were 'in actual occupation of, or entitled to occupy' the lands they selected. The change to 'occupier' was made to encompass this significant category of landholders, without consideration apparently being given to the alternative approach of defining 'owners' to include such persons.
3.13 That alternative approach was adopted elsewhere, where the term 'owner' is defined to include not only persons who are legally or equitably entitled to an estate of freehold in possession or otherwise in receipt of or entitled to receive rents and profits from the subject land, but leaseholders and licensees of various kinds[19] and, in the case of Tasmania, 'purchaser on credit of Crown land and every person deriving title from same'.[20]
3.14 The Committee notes that the Statute Law Revision Committee of the Victorian Parliament (SLRC) in 1965 considered various suggestions for amending the definition of 'occupier' in the Victorian Fences Act and recommended some changes,[21] but did not address the question of whether the Act should impose liability on owners, as against occupiers.
3.15 From its examination of the matter, the Committee has concluded that the liability of occupiers rather than owners under the Victorian Act is an historical anomaly and that Victorian legislation ought to be brought into conformity with other States in this respect. In reaching this conclusion the Committee has taken account of the fact that a fence, once constructed, forms part of the land to which it is affixed and becomes the property of the legal owner of the land.[22] As a matter of equity, it would seem appropriate that the obligation to contribute to the cost of fence construction should be borne by the owner, the value of whose property is thereby increased. Since it is likely that an owner's interest in the land will outlive that of a tenant, it is also appropriate for an owner, rather than an occupier, to negotiate to determine the location and characteristics of the fence, albeit having regard to his or her tenant's needs.
3.16 As the Fences Act presently stands, an owner's proprietary rights may be jeopardised by an agreement between neighbouring occupiers to position a fence other than on the title boundary, without notice to the owner. Except in section 5(4), which applies to land beside watercourses, the Act provides no protection for an owner against claims in adverse possession arising from fences positioned elsewhere than on the title boundary, whether by agreement or otherwise.
3.17 In the course of its Inquiry, the Committee has considered a number of issues for which the change from occupier to owner has significance. These include: specification of vendor and purchaser obligations where a fencing notice is received in the context of the sale of a property,[23] registration on title of agreements for 'give and take' fences,[24] clarification of the liability of body corporate members,[25] and the imposition of charges on land in respect of unpaid fencing debts.[26]
3.18 With respect to charges on the land, the Committee notes that the present section 24 shifts liability from the occupier to the owner before providing that a charge may be registered on title. The liability in the owner arises only after the Court is satisfied that the occupier is unable to pay[27] and takes effect after the adjoining occupier has performed the whole of the fencing work pursuant to an order of the Court.[28] The contribution outstanding to the adjoining occupier then becomes and remains a charge upon the land occupied by the person in default[29] until the owner or occupier of that land or any mortgagee or lienee[30] pays the outstanding amount, including any interest payable.[31] The amount for which 'any person' is liable may be the subject of a complaint by either party or the owner for the time being and the owner may appear in any proceeding.[32] The Committee considers that this is a cumbersome means to a desirable end, and is best circumvented by making the owner liable, subject to the provisions of the Act apportioning contribution as between landlord and tenant in the case of non-residential leases.[33]
3.19 The Committee is also of the view that primary liability in the owner would improve the procedural arrangements that currently apply where landlord and tenant are each part liable.[34] Under the current provisions, a tenant is formally the liable party.[35] For tenancies under twelve years--which can be assumed to be most tenancies in Victoria (other than Crown leases and licences, to which different provisions apply)--the landlord is liable to pay a sum greater than or equal to his or her tenant.[36] If the landlord does not agree to pay that sum, the tenant may be sued and may join the landlord in the action with the result that a landlord's refusal to pay can result in the tenant having to go to court. Section 10(2) permits a tenant to pay the whole sum and set the landlord's contribution off against the rent. However, this puts a tenant in an invidious position if the major contribution is to come from the owner and the owner wishes to maintain his or her opposition to the fence being proposed.
3.20 For these reasons, the Committee recommends that the proposed Dividing Fences and Boundaries Act should make owners of land primarily liable for contribution towards the cost of fencing works. However, the Committee considers that the convenience of the present arrangement for service of notices upon the occupier, without the need to determine the actual ownership of land, should be maintained and that service of such notices either upon the occupier or the owner should be effective under the Act. Moreover, the relationship between owners and occupiers of the same land in respect of fencing works needs to be addressed in the proposed Act. Consequently, a definition of 'occupier' (other than as owner) needs to be retained in an amended form.
3.21 In considering an appropriate definition of 'owner', the Committee has consulted fencing legislation in all other States and the Northern Territory and the definition which appears in the Building Act 1993 (Vic.).[37] The Committee considers that the definition proposed below satisfies the need to extend the ordinary meaning of 'owner' to encompass persons with some interests in land other than title interests.
3.22 So far as liability under the Act to contribute to the cost of fencing works is concerned, the Committee believes that the meaning of 'owner' should be expanded to include certain occupiers of unalienated Crown land. This will include a number of categories of persons within the concept of an 'owner' who presently fall within the definition of 'occupier' under the Fences Act 1968 and will include others who may not presently be liable to contribute to the cost of fencing works.[38]
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
Okay, have a look at an exerpt from the Chapter Three - Review of the Fences Act 1968[\b]
3.1 Most suggestions for detailed amendments to the Fences Act 1968 (Vic.) made in submissions to the Committee were aimed at meeting public expectations or clarifying the legal position of parties so as to expedite negotiated outcomes. Other amendments considered in this Chapter have been prompted by the example of legislation in other States.
Definitions
3.2 The Fences Act contains only three definitions.[1] 'Dividing fence' is defined as a 'fence separating the lands of different occupiers'. The term 'occupier' is defined to include any person in actual occupation of, or entitled as owner to occupy, any land purchased or alienated from the Crown and also 'the holder of a right to occupy a residence area in respect of land under the Land Act 1958'. Expressly excluded from the definition of 'occupier' is:
any person in occupation of or entitled to occupy land under a license under the Mineral Resources Development Act 1990; or
any person in the occupation of land held by yearly license under any Act relating to the sale and occupation of Crown lands which has been in force or comes into force.
The expression 'to repair' is defined to include 'to trim keep and maintain a live fence'.
Fence and Dividing Fence
3.3 Notably, the Fences Act contains no definition of 'fence', leaving this word to have its ordinary English meaning. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a 'fence' to be:[2]
A railing or barrier constructed of posts of any of various materials connected by wire, planks, etc., used to enclose and prevent entry to and exit from a field, yard, etc.
The definition of 'fence' refers the reader to the word 'live' where 'live fence', which originated in the United States, means 'a hedge'.[3] Another definition of 'fence' is contained in the Macquarie Dictionary, which defines the word to mean: 'an enclosure or barrier, usually of wire or wood, as around or along a field, garden, etc.'[4] Neither the Oxford nor the Macquarie definitions in their terms contemplate a vegetative barrier within the definition of 'fence'; however, the definition of 'to repair' in the Fences Act shows clearly that live fences are fences for the purposes of the Act.
3.4 One submission lamented the lack of a definition of fence in the Act and saw the inclusion of such a definition as desirable.[5]
3.5 There is a dearth of statutory definitions of the word 'fence' in Victorian legislation. While Part I of the Land Act 1958 (Vic.), which deals with 'Crown Lands Generally', contains a definition of 'fence', this prescribes four kinds of fence in a manner similar to the pre-1968 list of 'sufficient fences' in the Fences Acts.[6]
3.6 The New South Wales, Queensland and Northern Territory Acts all contain a definition of 'fence' which stands behind the definition of 'dividing fence'.[7] Only in South Australia is the ordinary meaning of the word 'fence' relied upon. The New South Wales Act provides perhaps the best model. It defines a 'fence' as follows:[8]
'fence' means a structure, ditch or embankment, or a hedge or similar vegetative barrier, enclosing or bounding land, whether or not continuous or extending along the whole boundary separating the land of adjoining owners, and includes:
a) any gate, cattlegrid or apparatus necessary for the operation of the fence; and
b) any natural or artificial watercourse which separates the land of adjoining owners; and
c) any foundation or support necessary for the support and maintenance of the fence,
but does not include a retaining wall or a wall which is part of a house, garage or other building.
3.7 In the Victorian Supreme Court case of City of Greater Geelong v. Herd,[9] where the issue of what constitutes a fence arose under planning law rather than the Fences Act, Batt J. held that a fence, in the ordinary sense, has two essential features: that of enclosing or barring an area; and that of being located along or serving to define the boundary of an area. It that case it was held that a structure erected to bar a view, which did not bar access at ground level, did not run for anything like the full length of the boundary, and did not serve to define a boundary (because an existing conventional fence already served that purpose), was a not a fence under the relevant planning scheme.
3.8 The Committee considers that the proposed Dividing Fences and Boundaries Act would benefit from the inclusion of a comprehensive definition of 'dividing fence' and recommends that this be achieved by the amalgamation of the definition in the present Fences Act 1968 (Vic.) with the New South Wales and Northern Territory definitions of 'fence' and the principles enunciated in City of Greater Geelong v. Herd.[10]
Recommendation 7
The proposed Dividing Fences and Boundaries Act should define the term 'dividing fence' to mean 'a construction, ditch or embankment, or a hedge or other vegetative barrier, enclosing or barring access to land, whether or not continuous or extending along the whole of a boundary, but serving to define the boundary of or separating the lands of different owners, whether or not located on the title boundary, and includes:
a) any gate, cattlegrid or apparatus necessary for the operation of the fence; and
b) any natural or artificial watercourse which is ordinarily sufficient to prevent trespass by persons or stock entering on foot; and
c) any foundation or support necessary for the support and maintenance of the construction,
but does not include a retaining wall or the wall of any building.
3.9 The Committee's definition excludes retaining walls because these structures serve quite different purposes from fences. They generally exist for the purpose of stabilising the face of land or providing structural support for material on and below the surface of land and not for the purpose of separating the land of adjoining occupiers.[11] The rights and obligations of neighbouring landowners concerning the erection and maintenance of retaining walls are best governed by the common law doctrine of support to land and therefore are not properly the subject of dividing fences legislation.
Owner and Occupier
3.10 Liability to contribute to the construction or repair of dividing fences under the Fences Act rests with the 'occupiers of adjoining lands'.[12] By section 3, 'occupier'
includes any person who is--
in the actual occupation of or entitled as owner to occupy any land purchased from the Crown under contract of sale or alienated from the Crown by grant lease or licence; and
the holder of a right to occupy a residence area in respect of land under the Land Act 1958 whether covered by a mining licence under the Mineral Resources Development Act 1990 or not -
but does not include--
any person in the occupation of or entitled to occupy land under a licence under the Mineral Resources Development Act 1990; or
any person in the occupation of land held by yearly licence under any Act relating to the sale and occupation of Crown lands which has been in force or comes into force.
The term 'owner' is not defined and is used only in sections 24 and 27, although contribution as between landlord and tenant is the subject of section 10. Section 27 exempts the owner, the occupier and their agents from the offence of snaring and trapping vermin within 11 metres of a vermin-proof fence. Section 24 effectively extends liability to contribute to the construction or repair of a vermin-proof fence to an owner, if the occupier is unable to pay. This special situation is discussed below.[13]
3.11 The only other State or Territory in Australia where liability for fencing costs attaches to occupiers rather than owners is the Australian Capital Territory,[14] where the use of the term 'occupier' is consistent with the distinctive system of land tenure in that Territory, in that most property is held on a lease from the Crown. In the absence of any feature distinguishing land tenure in Victoria from that of other States, there would appear to be no particular rationale for the different approach taken in Victoria.
3.12 Victoria's divergence from the approach in other States occurred in 1874, prior to which liability to contribute to the cost of fencing attached to owners of land.[15] The change in focus from owners to occupiers occurred with the enactment of The Fences Statute 1874 and followed more than two years of disputation between Upper and Lower Houses of the Parliament on unrelated matters. When the first form of the Bill was introduced in 1871,[16] its purpose was said to be to extend the reach of the Act from freehold owners to selectors who had elected to purchase land from the Crown in accordance with the provisions of Part II of the Land Act 1862 (Vic.).[17] Those provisions enabled selectors to enter what was in effect a credit contract, whereby the selector paid a deposit and annual rental[18] and was considered a lessee until final payment was made. Although they were not owners, selectors were 'in actual occupation of, or entitled to occupy' the lands they selected. The change to 'occupier' was made to encompass this significant category of landholders, without consideration apparently being given to the alternative approach of defining 'owners' to include such persons.
3.13 That alternative approach was adopted elsewhere, where the term 'owner' is defined to include not only persons who are legally or equitably entitled to an estate of freehold in possession or otherwise in receipt of or entitled to receive rents and profits from the subject land, but leaseholders and licensees of various kinds[19] and, in the case of Tasmania, 'purchaser
3.14 The Committee notes that the Statute Law Revision Committee of the Victorian Parliament (SLRC) in 1965 considered various suggestions for amending the definition of 'occupier' in the Victorian Fences Act and recommended some changes,[21] but did not address the question of whether the Act should impose liability on owners, as against occupiers.
3.15 From its examination of the matter, the Committee has concluded that the liability of occupiers rather than owners under the Victorian Act is an historical anomaly and that Victorian legislation ought to be brought into conformity with other States in this respect. In reaching this conclusion the Committee has taken account of the fact that a fence, once constructed, forms part of the land to which it is affixed and becomes the property of the legal owner of the land.[22] As a matter of equity, it would seem appropriate that the obligation to contribute to the cost of fence construction should be borne by the owner, the value of whose property is thereby increased. Since it is likely that an owner's interest in the land will outlive that of a tenant, it is also appropriate for an owner, rather than an occupier, to negotiate to determine the location and characteristics of the fence, albeit having regard to his or her tenant's needs.
3.16 As the Fences Act presently stands, an owner's proprietary rights may be jeopardised by an agreement between neighbouring occupiers to position a fence other than on the title boundary, without notice to the owner. Except in section 5(4), which applies to land beside watercourses, the Act provides no protection for an owner against claims in adverse possession arising from fences positioned elsewhere than on the title boundary, whether by agreement or otherwise.
3.17 In the course of its Inquiry, the Committee has considered a number of issues for which the change from occupier to owner has significance. These include: specification of vendor and purchaser obligations where a fencing notice is received in the context of the sale of a property,[23] registration on title of agreements for 'give and take' fences,[24] clarification of the liability of body corporate members,[25] and the imposition of charges on land in respect of unpaid fencing debts.[26]
3.18 With respect to charges on the land, the Committee notes that the present section 24 shifts liability from the occupier to the owner before providing that a charge may be registered on title. The liability in the owner arises only after the Court is satisfied that the occupier is unable to pay[27] and takes effect after the adjoining occupier has performed the whole of the fencing work pursuant to an order of the Court.[28] The contribution outstanding to the adjoining occupier then becomes and remains a charge upon the land occupied by the person in default[29] until the owner or occupier of that land or any mortgagee or lienee[30] pays the outstanding amount, including any interest payable.[31] The amount for which 'any person' is liable may be the subject of a complaint by either party or the owner for the time being and the owner may appear in any proceeding.[32] The Committee considers that this is a cumbersome means to a desirable end, and is best circumvented by making the owner liable, subject to the provisions of the Act apportioning contribution as between landlord and tenant in the case of non-residential leases.[33]
3.19 The Committee is also of the view that primary liability in the owner would improve the procedural arrangements that currently apply where landlord and tenant are each part liable.[34] Under the current provisions, a tenant is formally the liable party.[35] For tenancies under twelve years--which can be assumed to be most tenancies in Victoria (other than Crown leases and licences, to which different provisions apply)--the landlord is liable to pay a sum greater than or equal to his or her tenant.[36] If the landlord does not agree to pay that sum, the tenant may be sued and may join the landlord in the action with the result that a landlord's refusal to pay can result in the tenant having to go to court. Section 10(2) permits a tenant to pay the whole sum and set the landlord's contribution off against the rent. However, this puts a tenant in an invidious position if the major contribution is to come from the owner and the owner wishes to maintain his or her opposition to the fence being proposed.
3.20 For these reasons, the Committee recommends that the proposed Dividing Fences and Boundaries Act should make owners of land primarily liable for contribution towards the cost of fencing works. However, the Committee considers that the convenience of the present arrangement for service of notices upon the occupier, without the need to determine the actual ownership of land, should be maintained and that service of such notices either upon the occupier or the owner should be effective under the Act. Moreover, the relationship between owners and occupiers of the same land in respect of fencing works needs to be addressed in the proposed Act. Consequently, a definition of 'occupier' (other than as owner) needs to be retained in an amended form.
3.21 In considering an appropriate definition of 'owner', the Committee has consulted fencing legislation in all other States and the Northern Territory and the definition which appears in the Building Act 1993 (Vic.).[37] The Committee considers that the definition proposed below satisfies the need to extend the ordinary meaning of 'owner' to encompass persons with some interests in land other than title interests.
3.22 So far as liability under the Act to contribute to the cost of fencing works is concerned, the Committee believes that the meaning of 'owner' should be expanded to include certain occupiers of unalienated Crown land. This will include a number of categories of persons within the concept of an 'owner' who presently fall within the definition of 'occupier' under the Fences Act 1968 and will include others who may not presently be liable to contribute to the cost of fencing works.[38]
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
OK, I looked at it... do I have to read it, sir?
HISTORIC BTCC VIDEOS
HISTORIC BTCC VIDEOS
After I did typed this whole lot of a sermon you come along and ask me "Do I have to read it?"
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
Most of the infantry think you're a prat. Ask them who they'd prefer to meet - Squadron Commander Flashheart or the man who cleans the public toilets in Aberdeen and they'd go for Wee Jock Poo-Pong McPlop every time.
LS's Tip of the week
ESSENTIAL OILS aren't essential unless you're an engine, a gearbox or a twat
LS's Tip of the week
ESSENTIAL OILS aren't essential unless you're an engine, a gearbox or a twat
He's mad. He's mad. He's madder than Mad
Jack McMad the winner of last year's Mr Madman competition
LS's Tip of the week
ESSENTIAL OILS aren't essential unless you're an engine, a gearbox or a twat
Jack McMad the winner of last year's Mr Madman competition
LS's Tip of the week
ESSENTIAL OILS aren't essential unless you're an engine, a gearbox or a twat
I had lost my mind but now I'm okay again
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
No, I just checked and found out I am not. I will look later again and keep you up to date. Watch this spacvefor further anouncements
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
welcome to the 9 o clock news.......
announcements to follow.....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
announcements to follow.....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.