Omar Parks Ltd v Elkington; Ron Grundy (Melbourne) Ltd v Boneheyo; Same v Boneheyo
Omar Parks Ltd v Elkington; Ron Grundy (Melbourne) Ltd v Boneheyo; Same v Boneheyo
- 1992
- Estates Gazette 1992 42 EG 108-112(3) .
CA 8 July 1992. Cases heard together on owners` entitlement to terminate mobile home agreements under the Mobile Homes Act 1983, where the occupier is not occupying the property as his sole residence. Both appeals raise the question of whether test of occupation should be judged at date when owner applied to court or the date of occupation when the application was heard and determined. In "Omar Parks Ltd v Elkington", the occupier (E) appealed against the CC decision granting a possession order to the owner (O) on the grounds that on the date of application E had not been occupying the mobile home as his main residence whereas he had on the date of the court hearing. Held that the wording of this section, was intended to prove whether or not the site was occupied as a main residence. The question of whether it was the date of application or the date of the hearing was irrelevant. Appeal allowed. Likewise, in "Ron Grundy (Melbourne) ltd v Boneheyo" and "Same v Boneheyo" the relevance
ASSIGNMENT
MAIN RESIDENCE
MOBILE HOMES ACT 1983
CA 8 July 1992. Cases heard together on owners` entitlement to terminate mobile home agreements under the Mobile Homes Act 1983, where the occupier is not occupying the property as his sole residence. Both appeals raise the question of whether test of occupation should be judged at date when owner applied to court or the date of occupation when the application was heard and determined. In "Omar Parks Ltd v Elkington", the occupier (E) appealed against the CC decision granting a possession order to the owner (O) on the grounds that on the date of application E had not been occupying the mobile home as his main residence whereas he had on the date of the court hearing. Held that the wording of this section, was intended to prove whether or not the site was occupied as a main residence. The question of whether it was the date of application or the date of the hearing was irrelevant. Appeal allowed. Likewise, in "Ron Grundy (Melbourne) ltd v Boneheyo" and "Same v Boneheyo" the relevance
ASSIGNMENT
MAIN RESIDENCE
MOBILE HOMES ACT 1983