Property & Leasing Disputes

Williams + Hughes has a strong Western Australian property disputes practice.  The team acts in the various State courts and the State Administrative Tribunal, and has particular experience:

  • Acting for property developers in relation to sale of land disputes, claims for contribution from neighbouring developers; and disputes between neighbouring landowners
  • Acting for purchasers in greenfields land and apartment developments
  • Disputes concerning equitable priorities relating to land, between competing security holders and between competing prospective tenants
  • Bringing or defending applications to extend the operation of caveats over property
  • Disputes concerning lease or purchase options over land, rights of first refusal, subdivision agreements between co-owners, and Court applications for sale or partition of land
  • Equitable claims of an interest in land, such as resulting or constructive trusts
  • Acting for landlords in the State courts in in claims for unpaid rent or damages, actions by tenants for relief against forfeiture of their leases, and counterclaims by tenants for alleged breaches of lease by the landlord
  • Disputes between tenants and landlords in relation to build-to-lease agreements, and in relation to the terms of offers to lease
  • Acting for retail shop tenants in the State Administrative Tribunal; to determine questions under the lease such as whether the landlord can terminate the lease or for damages or other relief relating to disclosure statements and demolition and building works undertaken by landlords
Click to view

Our relevant and notable experience includes:

  • Acted for national property group in Supreme Court proceedings alleging misleading and deceptive conduct in the sale of lots in a commercial estate development and the sale of retail shop units in a shopping centre
  • Acted for a financier in  Supreme Court proceedings relating to a large apartment development, enforcement as mortgagee in possession, and priority disputes between competing financiers
  • Acted for a prospective tenant in Supreme Court proceedings against a landlord and competing prospective tenant, in a dispute concerning equitable priorities between competing agreements to lease, and damages for repudiation by the landlord
  • Acted for large national property developer in disputes concerning sale contracts to purchasers
  • Acted in Supreme Court family dispute involving termination of a joint tenancy and disputed claims of a beneficial interest in the parents’ property
  • Advised a property owner in relation to adverse possession of a local government laneway that had been converted to a gazetted road, and advised property owners in relation to high-value adverse possession disputes concerning boundary fences and building overhangs
  • Acted for the vendor in a dispute concerning the sale of a high-end property where the purchaser claimed misrepresentations had been made by the selling agent
  • Acted for the landlord in a Supreme Court application by an evicted tenant for relief against forfeiture and claims the lease had not been validly terminated
  • Acted for a large private property investor in multiple court proceedings concerning tenants in a retail shopping centre and other commercial properties
  • Acted for the plaintiff in Supreme Court proceedings alleging derogation from grant and breach of a right of first refusal to purchase a large parcel of englobo land suitable for residential development, including issues concerning interpretation of the agreement, proprietary estoppel, and the date of assessment of damages
  • Acted for successful co-owner in Supreme Court proceedings seeking partition for sale of land under section 126 Property Law Act 1969
  • Acted for a large national company lessor in a leasing dispute involving franchisor and franchisee, with claims of misleading and deceptive conduct made under section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law and section 16C of the Retail Shops Act
Click to view
Williams + Hughes Earns Recertification in Meritas, the Leading Global Alliance of Independent Business Law Firms

Williams + Hughes is pleased to announce that it has been awarded recertification in Meritas, a...

Meritas Welcomes DMAW Lawyers, Adelaide, to the Membership

Leading Adelaide commercial Firm, DMAW Lawyers has been selected to be South Australia’s repre...

Retail Shop Lease expenditure statements - It can be too late !

In a situation that is not unusual in the commercial retail shop leasing space; particularly with sm...

Covid-19 relief for commercial tenants in Western Australia

The State and Commonwealth Governments are in the process of enacting legislation to provide relief ...

Disclose the full upfront price or risk breaking the law: new upfront pricing laws apply

It is not uncommon for businesses to advertise a headline price for goods and services to their...


Icechest Corp Pty Ltd v Quan [2017] WASC 345 is probably the latest Australian iteration of the ques...

Case Note - Swinburne v Boase [2016] WASC 299 - Always Support the Caveat with a Charging Clause or Some Other Express Grant of a Proprietary Interest

It is not uncommon for loan and residential construction agreements (or similar) to include a clause...

Copyright © 2024 Williams+ Hughes. All Rights Reserved | Privacy | Terms & Conditions