Sentences with phrase «exclusive possession act»

Similarly, sub-section 9C of NTA s23B provides that if a vesting in relation to land or waters is to or in the Crown in any capacity or statutory authority, that act is not a previous exclusive possession act, unless apart from the NTA, it extinguishes native title.

[14] Under this section a «previous exclusive possession act» which wholly extinguishes native title covers a range of acts.

Section 23B (9A) provides that a vesting which involves the establishment of an area, such as a national, State or Territory park, for the purpose of preserving the natural environment of the area is not a previous exclusive possession act.

In those amendments, specific leases granted under s23 of the WLA and granted for the purpose of «agriculture, or any similar purpose; agriculture (or any similar purpose) and grazing combined; mixed farming or any similar purpose other than grazing» were scheduled as a previous exclusive possession act under NTA s23B (2)(c)(i) with the effect that native title was extinguished in these areas.

The Court noted this exclusion but found that the perpetual grazing lease was an exclusive lease and thus a previous exclusive possession act under NTA s23B (2)(c)(iv) or (viii) which also extinguished native title.

Sub-section 9A of NTA s23B allows that if a previous exclusive possession act is the grant or vesting for the establishment of a national, state or territory park for the purpose of preserving the natural environment of the area, then the vesting would not be a previous exclusive possession act.

The confirmation provisions prescribe the effect of a «previous exclusive possession act» is to extinguish native title completely and the effect of a previous non-exclusive possession act is to extinguish native title to the extent of any inconsistency.

In relation to the confirmation provisions the inconsistency is between Indigenous interests on the one hand and non-Indigenous interests specified by way of a schedule to the Act or referred to generically as either «exclusive possession acts» or «non-exclusive possession acts».

The NTA provides a fairly comprehensive codification of what past government actions extinguish native title.145 It classifies various interests in the past, often distant past, as «previous exclusive possession acts» which deems them to have permanently extinguished native title.146 The NTA also provides that «previous non-exclusive possession acts» 147 will extinguish native title to the extent of any inconsistency.148 The NTA also validates acts of government that took place before the High Court's decision in Wik which may be invalid because of the existence of native title (generally, due to the Constitutional requirement that «just terms» be paid where property is acquired, 149 or the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).150 This aspect of the NTA has been repeatedly criticised by CERD.

Not exact matches

to property, a plaintiff must show: (1) an invasion affecting an interest in exclusive possession; (2) the act resulting in the invasion was intentional; (3) reasonable foreseeability that the act could result in an invasion of the plaintiff's possessory interest; and (4) substantial damage to the property.

Form FL - 1 — Statement of Claim for Divorce Form FL - 2 — Statement of Claim for Division of Matrimonial Property Form FL - 3 — Statement of Claim for Divorce and Division of Matrimonial Property Form FL - 4 — Statement of Defence Form FL - 5 — Counterclaim for Divorce Form FL - 6 — Counterclaim for Division of Matrimonial Property Form FL - 7 — Counterclaim for Divorce and Division of Matrimonial Property Form FL - 8 — Joint Statement of Claim for Divorce Form FL - 10 — FLA Claim Form FL - 11 — Response — Family Law Act Form FL - 12 — Certificate of Lawyer Form FL - 13 — Protection Order Questionnaire Form FL - 14 — Restraining Order Application Form FL - 15 — Notice to Produce an Affidavit of Records Form FL - 16 — Notice to Reply to Written Interrogatories Application Form FL - 17 — Notice to Disclose — Application Form FL - 18 — Family Application Form FL - 19 — Provisional Order Information Form FL - 20 — Notice of Confirmation Hearing Form FL - 21 — Request for Divorce (Without Oral Evidence) Form FL - 22 — Joint Request for Divorce (Without Oral Evidence) Form FL - 23 — Affidavit of Applicant Form FL - 24 — Affidavit of Applicants (Joint) Form FL - 25 — Divorce Judgment (without oral evidence) Form FL - 26 — DJ and Corollary Relief Order Form FL - 27 — Corollary Relief Order Form FL - 28 — Variation Order Form FL - 29 — Exclusive Possession Order Form FL - 30 — Restraining Order Without Notice Form FL - 31 — Restraining Order Form FL - 33 — Notice of Appeal — Provincial Court Order (Family Law Act) Form FL - 34 — Adult's Statement — Guardianship of Child Form FL - 35 — Child's Statement — Guardianship of Child Form FL - 36 — Statement — Terminate Guardianship Form FL - 37 — Statement — Review of Guardian's Significant Decision Form FL - 38 — Statement — Court Direction Form FL - 39 — Statement — Parenting Form FL - 40 — Statement — Parenting (Sole Guardian) Form FL - 45 — Statement — Child Support Form FL - 46 — Recipient's Statement — Vary Child Support Form FL - 47 — Payor's Statement — Vary Child Support Form FL - 48 — Statement — Spousal Partner Support Form FL - 49 — Recipient's Statement — Vary Spousal Partner Support Form FL - 50 — Payor's Statement — Vary Spousal Partner Support Form FL - 51 — Statement — Enforcement of Time With a Child Summary of Child Support Guideline Undue Hardship Claim

Is the operation of adverse possession on an allocation of exclusive use of a common element under the Condominium Act a derogation of «title of the registered owner»?

Section 24 (1) of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F. 3, empowers the Court to grant an order for exclusive possession regardless of ownership of the matrimonial home.

For the spouse who remains in the home, the obligation to pay occupation rent is usually imposed by a court pursuant to the Family Law Act, which authorizes it in the right circumstances, provided he or she has been awarded exclusive possession.

Section 24 of the Matrimonial Property Act says essentially the same thing for married persons granted exclusive possession orders under that Act:

In Paul, the plaintiff applied under s 77 of British Columbia's Family Relations Act for an exclusive possession order for herself and the three children of the marriage (para 13).

However, regardless of whether the victim is also a tenant or not, the perpetrator who is a tenant is entitled to keys and to access unless the victim has a protection order with a condition for exclusive possession of the residential premises under the Protection Against Family Violence Act, RSA 2000, c P - 27 (PAFVA) or other legislation discussed by Professor Koshan.

Both the Family Law Act and the Matrimonial Property Act are silent about the status of a perpetrator who was a tenant or co-tenant at the time an order granting exclusive possession to the victim was made, so it is likely the perpetrator will continue to be a tenant.

The Family Law Act, SA 2003, c F - 4.5 (FLA), allows for exclusive possession orders to be made in relation to the family home as part of an order providing for child or spousal support, and can include an order evicting a spouse or adult interdependent partner and restraining them «from entering or attending at or near the family home» (section 68 (1)-RRB-.

In order to determine whether appellant's appeal of the temporary order awarding respondent exclusive possession of the marital home and requiring appellant to vacate acted as a stay, it is necessary to determine the nature of that order.

For example, if a court is considering making an Order giving one spouse exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, the court is obliged under the Family Law Act to take into account the following:

14 The exact dates differ depending on whether the act is an exclusive or non-exclusive possession act, an intermediate period act or a past act.

commercial rights are intrinsically connected to, and require, exclusive possession, which will not be granted under the Native Title Act (as seen in the Croker Island case).

Chief Justice Gleeson's decision in Wilson v Anderson provided a guide to when this might occur: where the law or act creates a right of exclusive possession in third parties in respect of a parcel of land the subject of native title.

Common law; mining lease grant right of exclusive possession for mining purposes; not category C act because no invalidity by RDA; in any case right to control access already extinguished by pastoral leases

There will also be a native title outcome sought through the application of s47 Native Title Act to the lease, and a determination of exclusive possession, anticipated and allowed for by the structure of divestment.