QLD Property Law - Can Applicant Graze on Property Without Liability?

[Naomi0410]

Can someone please explain the full extent of the following:

'The Applicant and First Respondent will permit '' PROPERTY NAME'' to be used:

by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents (in common with the Applicant pursuant to Order 11) for grazing and farming purposes in exchange for which the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents will indemnify the Applicant and the First Respondent with respect to all outgoings and maintenance on "PROPERTY NAME" and will further indemnify them with respect to all liabilities arising out of the grazing and farming business conducted on "PROPERTY NAME". '

The 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents are the 2 sons and Company Trust respectively.

To me this means that the Applicant can graze or farm the property without any liability whenever he wants, with however many cattle he wants. Is this right under Property Law?

 

[Naomi0410]

especially with the next Order stating that
'The Respondents will permit the Applicant to depasture his cattle on "PROPERTY NAME" for a period of 20 years from the date of this order at no cost to the Applicant"

 

[James D. Ford - Solicitor]

Hi Naomi

I assume the clauses you are quoting, are from a proposed Settlement Agreement (via DRAFT Court Orders) to end legal proceedings between the parties, is that correct?

What does Order 11 state? Is this the next Order you have quoted, where the Applicant is permitted to depasture his cattle on "PROPERTY NAME" for a period of 20 years...etc.?

You are correct in your understanding.... based on the Orders you have quoted, that is exactly what is ordered.

My recommendation is that you seek legal advice aiming (if possible) to challenge this orders, as they appear to be uncertain, and could easily be taken advantage of... by the Applicant.

Kind regards

 

[Naomi0410]

Order 11 is the first one I quoted with Order 12 being the comment. But thank you for the clarification, I have stated that there are stipulations to be put in place such as a cap on numbers of cattle that can be grazed. Does this sound appropriate do you think?

 

[James D. Ford - Solicitor]

Hi Naomi

It is very appropriate to limit the number of cattle.... in fact, I do not see any other way it could possibly work.

However... what is the situation here?

Why are the orders for the next 20 years?

Assuming the Property is large enough to accomodate it - in my view, a better solution would be to divide the Property into sub-lease areas (paddocks), and for each party to have exclusive use and full responsibility for their paddock. That way each party can do what they like with their paddock. If it is for 20 years, the fencing would be the highest cost in such a solution.

Alternatively, if the Property is not large enough... the party who wants to run the largest number of cattle, could pay the other parties for a 20 year lease of the entire Property, with all of the usual terms and conditions applied to such an arrangement... and the other parties could use the money to lease a Property elsewhere to run their livestock.

Rather than having everyone together, which if not properly setup from the beginning, with a detailed agreement covering all aspects of running livestock, and even with a detailed agreement in place, it may only cause the potential for conflict... if some of the parties breach the agreement, or do not contribute to the same level as the other parties.

What if there is a drought? fire? disease? etc.

Who maintains the fences?

Who pays the Property rates?

What if one party wants to run sheep, or other livestock?

We are talking about 20 years, and a lot can happen in 20 years!!

Kind regards