Glamorgan Spring Bay AM 2018-03 - further submission Ross Irving, 19 August 2019From: Ross Irving To: TPC Enquiry (DoJ) Subject: Submission for Hearing Date: Monday, 19 August 2019 1:11:36 PM Attachments: Landowner Consent Hearing.pdf
Hello Team
Kind Regards
Tasmanian Planning Commission
GPO Box 1691
HOBART TAS 7001
By email: tpc@planning.tas.gov.au
Dear Ms. Cunningham,
GLAMORGAN SPRING BAY INTERIM PLANNING SCHEME 2015 DRAFT AMENDMENT AM 2018-03 CAMBRIA ESTATE, SWANSEA
I thank the Commission for the opportunity to be heard at the scheduled hearing on the 30th of
August 2019.
The submissions previously lodged that I intend to rely upon are:
3 April
Containing an extract of an email that I sent to Jen Welsh (IreneInc) pointing out possible Typo’s.
It contains a copy of the consent letter of Cambria Green Agriculture Development Pty. Ltd. and
points out that it uses the suffix Ltd instead of Pty. Ltd.
28 April
Showing the consent by Emperor Yue Green Agriculture Development Ltd is signed by Sun Green
Agriculture Development Ltd.
I also say that the Signature “Appears to be that of Liu Kejing.”
10 May
Submission relates to whether a person who has a prescribed interest in the land should also need
to submit a consent letter ie. the beneficiaries of burdening easements.
21 May
Submission points out that Shenglong Hong Kong Investment Ltd has two directors (as shown by the
company return attached to the Witness Statement).
24 May
Submission discusses Ronald Hu’s Witness Statement and suggests Liu Kejing may not have authority
to sign on behalf of Shenglong Hong Kong Investment Ltd. It also points out that there are two
directors of Cambria Green Agriculture Development Pty. Ltd. inferring that again Liu Kejing may not
have authority to sign.
The affidavit material and documentation upon which I intend to rely include:
Electronic Transaction Act 2000, Tasmania
Hong Kong Electronic Transactions Ordinance (“ETO”)
Ireneinc Cover Letter
Ireneinc Owner Consents
Email between myself and Jen Welsh
https://www.kwm.com/en/hk/knowledge/insights/execution-of-documents-in-hong-kong-recent-
developments-20140205
https://www.timothyloh.com/22-publications/featured/84-execution-of-documents
https://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/biglaw/22559-electronic-signatures-a-guide-for-lawyers
https://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/5777/electronic-signatures-and-their-legal-validity-in-.aspx
I request the opportunity to interview Mr Shane Wells
I request that documentation (Company Board Minutes etc.) that shows the resolutions that
empower Liu Kejing to act as Agent on behalf of the companies Shenglong Hong Kong Investment
Ltd and Cambria Green Agriculture Development Pty. Ltd. be produced.
I request to sight a copy of the company constitution or articles of association of both Shenglong
Hong Kong Investment Ltd and Cambria Green Agriculture Development Pty. Ltd.
I also request the opportunity to interview Jen Welsh (or someone from Ireneinc) who can explain
the process of generating the Letters of Consent.
Ireneinc on behalf of their client Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Management Pty Ltd to
amend the Glamorgan Spring Bay Interim Plan 2015.
The amendment covers 12 titles and is over 3000ha of land.
A letter (cambria – landowner consent.pdf) that was intended to convey the consent of the land
owners accompanied this application.
LUPAA states Written Permission of the Owner or Owners required.
[Section 33 Subsection (2A)]
If a request under subsection (1) is in respect of one parcel or several parcels of land covered
by the planning scheme and is requested by a person who is not the owner of the land to
which the proposed amendment applies, the request must be –
(a) signed by the owner or owners of the land; or
(b) accompanied by the written permission of the owner or owners to the making of the
request.
The matter I am raising is this:
Does the document cambria – landowner consent.pdf satisfy the conditions set out in
LUPAA.
Does it clearly provide evidence that each of the landowners has given their written
permission to the making of the request?
This document was apparently assembled by Ireneinc, also on March 19th 2018. It contains
numerous typographic errors, one of which is repeated on every consent letter. It is quite apparent
when viewing the consent letters that the document is a compilation of letters generated by
Ireneinc. In fact the documents properties show this document was converted to PDF format from a
MS Word document, “S33 owners consent proforma – Cambria.docx”
Two of the errors are notable.
1. The Australian company Cambria Green Agriculture Development Pty Ltd is referred to as
Cambria Green Agriculture Development Ltd. The use of the suffix Ltd instead of Pty Ltd is
not a trivial matter.
2. The consent of the company Emperor Yue Green Agriculture Development Ltd has been
given by a representative of the company Sun Green Agriculture Development Ltd.
I realised the errors were likely to be honest mistakes not intended to mislead and so I advised
Ireneinc of them by email assuming that they would take steps to correct the consent letters..
The reply from Ireneinc was “thanks for that. I will review, but I suspect that the typo’s were
probably from my end. This shouldn’t be an issue as the correct landowners signed the consents.”
This reply supports the contention that the letters were generated by Ireneinc.
In his first Witness Statement Ronald Hu states that:
Ms Welsh from lreneinc provided written consent from each landowner to the application.
The majority of the errors appear to be of a clerical nature and might be consistent with what could
be expected of someone trying to meet a deadline.
There are two scenarios possible regarding the signing of the letters.
1. That unsigned letters were forwarded to the landowners and land owning companies for the
attaching of the electronic signatures and returned to Ireneinc for collating into the consent
document.
2. That the electronic signatures were inserted by Ireneinc on behalf of the landowners.
There are nine consent letters of which seven are from land owning companies.
None of the consent letters from companies include the information that one would usually expect
Company legal documents to include.
None of them include a company letterhead. Neither do they include any identifying information
about the company. They do not for instance include their ABN or CR (Hong Kong) number, web site,
address or contact details.
The postal address for each of the land owning companies is again not the correspondence address
shown on their company registration (which is actually Room 802, Yale Industrial Centre, 61-63 Au
Piu Wan St, Fotan, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong for each of the Hong Kong companies).
None of the letters from land owning companies has identified the name or official capacity of the
person whose signature is attached to the letter.
In fact, in my opinion, the letters are inconsistent with what one might usually expect of an official
company legal document.
There is nothing about the documents that shows evidence that the companies had actually sighted
the consent documents and given their written permission to the making of the request prior to it
being submitted to Glamorgan Spring Bay Council on the 19th March 2018.
Electronic Signatures In my submission 28 April, I remarked that the attached signature appeared to be that of Liu Kejing.
It is an Electronic Signature.
A similar Chinese mark is affixed to all the consent letters apart from that of Siu Lam Suen.
The mark attached to Sun Green Agriculture Ltd is similar but not identical.
The attaching of such marks in lieu of a written signature is foreseen in LUPAA
LUPAA makes reference to the use of electronic signatures:-
LUPAA
PART 6 - Miscellaneous Division 1 - Electronic database and documents
(4) If under this Act a submission in relation to a matter may be given to a relevant person by
another person, the submission may be made to the relevant person by the other person by
transmitting the submission by an electronic method specified in relation to the matter under
subsection (3) by the relevant person.
(5) A reference in this section to the giving of a relevant document includes a reference to the
issuing, provision or service, or other means of delivery, of the document.
(6) If a relevant document, referred to in a provision of this Act, may be given by a person in
accordance with this section, a reference in a provision of this Act to a signature of a person
on the document is to be taken to include a reference to an electronic signature, of the
person, on the document.
(7) In this section –
relevant document means –
(a) a notice (including a notice in writing and a planning purposes notice), direction (including
a direction in writing), declaration and invitation; and
(b) a draft planning scheme, draft interim planning scheme, planning scheme, interim
planning scheme, draft amendment to a planning scheme and a draft amendment to an
interim planning scheme; and
(c) a permit, a special planning permit and a dispensation; and
(d) a statement, submission, recommendation, modification, requirement, application,
approval, report and any other document (including a document specified in a provision of
this Act to be a document in writing);
relevant person means –
What’s an electronic signature?
A good working definition is that an electronic signature is a visible representation of a person’s name or mark, placed by a person on a document or in a communication, by electronic or electronic and mechanical means, to identify the person and indicate that they put their mind to adopting the document or communication.
An electronic signature is different in this sense from a digital signature, which is concerned with cryptographic authentication technology rather than a person signalling their assent to a document by marking it.
Common examples of electronic signatures include a person typing their name in an email or word document, pasting a digitised image of their physical signature, selecting an option in e-signing software, signing a soft copy of a document with a stylus or finger on a touchscreen, or using another form of biometric identification.
Where an electronic signature is placed by an agent of the signatory
Counterparties may be uncomfortable accepting a document signed electronically by an agent, such as a personal assistant, affixing the principal’s electronic signature.
To deal with this concern, where an agent is signing a document electronically, the principal should directly inform the relevant counterparty that the agent will place the principal’s electronic signature on their behalf to minimise the risk that the contract will be challenged because of questions regarding the validity of the signature. If the signature needs to be witnessed, the agent placing the signature shouldn’t also be the witness.
In the case of the consent letters, unless the landowner personally affixed the signature to the
consent letter, whoever was the person that placed the signature would be considered to be an
agent. In this case advice should have been provided to the Planning Authority by the principal
(signatory) that the agent (Ireneinc) would be placing the signature on their behalf.
In Tasmania the requirements for electronic signatures are prescribed by
Electronic Transactions Act 2000
7. Signatures
(1) If, under a law of this jurisdiction, the signature of a person is required, that requirement is
taken to have been met in relation to an electronic communication if –
(a) a method is used to identify the person and to indicate the person's intention in respect of
the information communicated; and
(b) the method used was either –
(i) as reliable as appropriate for the purpose for which the electronic communication was
generated or communicated, in the light of all the circumstances, including any relevant
agreement; or
(ii) proven in fact to have fulfilled the functions described in paragraph (a) , by itself or together
with further evidence; and
(c) the person to whom the signature is required to be given consents to that requirement being
met by way of the use of the method mentioned in paragraph (a) .
(2) This section does not affect the operation of any other law of this jurisdiction that makes
provision for or in relation to requiring –
(a) an electronic communication to contain an electronic signature (however described); or
(b) an electronic communication to contain a unique identification in an electronic form; or
(c) a particular method to be used in relation to an electronic communication to identify the
originator of the communication and to indicate the originator's intention in respect of the
information communicated.
(3) The reference in subsection (1) to a law that requires a signature includes a reference to a
law that provides consequences for the absence of a signature.
Hong Kong law for Electronic signing of documents is similar
https://www.kwm.com/en/hk/knowledge/insights/execution-of-documents-in-hong-kong-recent-
developments-20140205
Companies are no longer required to have a common seal
Under the NCO, Hong Kong companies will no longer be required to have a common seal. If a
company chooses to adopt a seal, then, as in the past, the seal must be a metallic seal with the
company's name engraved in legible form and it should be applied in accordance with the company's
Articles of Association.
When the NCO comes into effect, a company may simply execute a document by having it signed by
the sole director (in the case of a company with only one director) or by two directors or one
director and the company secretary (in the case of a company with more than one director). A
company may execute documents this way even if it does have a common seal and this will have the
same effect as executing a document under the company's common seal.
Where a Hong Kong company executes a document this way without a company seal then
purchasers in good faith for valuable consideration will be entitled to rely on that execution as being
valid execution by the company.
What Is Required For An E-Signature To Be Valid In Hong Kong
The use of electronic signatures is governed by the Electronic Transaction Ordinance (ETO) Cap.
553, and within this piece of legislation is the definition of “electronic signature”.
It is defined under Section 2 as “any letters, characters, numbers or other symbols in digital form
attached to or logically associated with an electronic record, and executed or adopted for the
purpose of authenticating or approving the electronic record”.
What this means is any electronic depiction of what is usually a written signature will be enough on
an electronic document. It could literally be a happy face, if you so wish to use that as your
signature. The definition is very loosely defined for the ease of people to do business. Some people
may be illiterate, and for them, any mark they make electronically will have the same legal effect as
a written one.
The Electronic Transactions Ordinance (Cap. 553) ("ETO")
In Hong Kong the rules in the ETO for electronic signatures: Section 6(1) of the ETO sets out three
requirements for an electronic signature to be valid when the transaction in question does not
involve anyone related to a government entity:
1. the person whose signature is required by law to be given uses a method to attach the
electronic signature or associate the electronic signature with an electronic record to
identify himself and indicate his authentication/approval of the information in the electronic
record—e-signature must be part of the e-document;
2. the method indicated in (1) is reliable and appropriate so that the information in the
electronic record is communicated; and
3. the person to whom the signature is given consents to the use of the method by the person
whose signature is required by law to be given—get consent
If all three simple criteria are fulfilled, the electronic signature itself will be legally binding.
Did Liu Kejing have authority to sign on behalf of the companies that he was not the sole
director of?
Signing by one director when there are two on more directors There are two land owning companies that have two Directors and the consent letter for each
contains only one signature. It is assumed in each case that it is the mark of Liu Kejing
Cambria Green Agriculture Development Pty. Ltd.
This is an Australian company and its directors at the time of the consent letter were Liu Kejing
and Hu Xiaojun. Hu Xiaojun is also the company secretary. Liu Kejing is the only shareholder.
Shenglong Hong Kong Investment Limited
Shenglong Hong Kong Investment Limited is a company registered in Hong Kong and also has
two Directors; Li Lihau and Liu Kejing. Both directors are shareholders with Li Lihau being the
majority shareholder.
For each of the Hong Kong companies Chan Man Poh is listed as Secretary.
For all the Hong Kong companies apart from (Shenglong Hong Kong Investment Limited) Liu Kejing is
the only Director (and only shareholder).
In Australia the provisions for directors (or agents) signing on behalf of a
company are: Under sections 126 and 127 of the Corporations Act 2001, a distinction is drawn between execution
by the company itself (which is governed by section 127), and execution by an agent on behalf of the
company (which is governed by section 126).
Section 127 provides for execution of a document with or without using the common seal. When
the common seal is not used and where a company has more than one director, section 127 requires
that at least two directors or a director and a company secretary of the company sign a contract in
order to bind the company.
CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 NO. 50, 2001
126 Agent exercising a company’s power to make contracts
(1) A company’s power to make, vary, ratify or discharge a contract may be exercised by an
individual acting with the company’s express or implied authority and on behalf of the company. The power
may be exercised without using a common seal.
(2) This section does not affect the operation of a law that requires a particular procedure to be
complied with in relation to the contract.
Agent exercising a company's power to make contracts
Section 126 of the Act states that a company's power to make, vary, ratify or discharge a contract may be exercised by an individual acting with the company's express or implied authority and on behalf of the company.
This power may be exercised without using the common seal, so a company could authorise a director or other agent to sign on its behalf.
However, in these circumstances the other party to the contract should require proof of the authority of the individual to sign on behalf of the company, such as a copy of a resolution of the sole director as the other party cannot rely on the assumptions in section 129 of the Act that the document has been
properly executed.
Liu Kejing could only sign the consent letter on behalf of Cambria Green Agriculture Development
Pty. Ltd. if he was relying on the provisions of 126 “Agent exercising a company’s power to make
contracts”
To sign as Agent he would need to have been so appointed by resolution of the board or otherwise
authorised.
developments-20140205
https://www.timothyloh.com/22-publications/featured/84-execution-of-documents
Hong Kong Companies The new Companies Ordinance (“CO”), introduced in 2014, establishes a statutory regime for the execution of documents, including simple contracts and deeds. Under the CO regime, a Hong Kong company may execute a simple contract in writing:
in the case of a company with only 1 director, by having it signed by the director on the company’s behalf; or
in the case of a company with 2 or more directors, by having it signed on the company’s behalf by (x) 2 directors, or (y) any director and the company secretary.
It is significant to note that the CO regime is not exhaustive but permissive. Hong Kong
companies may also execute written contracts pursuant to board resolutions in compliance with
their articles of association. Thus, for example, assuming no provisions to the contrary in its
articles of association, a Hong Kong company may enter into a simple contract in writing by
appointing an individual to sign on its behalf even though the individual is not a director and
even though there may be 2 or more directors. Similarly, for example, a Hong Kong company
may execute a deed by affixing its common seal in accordance with its articles of association
pursuant to a board resolution.
Signing by a Company Agent
Where a Hong Kong company executes a document otherwise than pursuant to the CO regime,
the basis of the authority of the signatory or signatories should be stated (e.g. “Signatory
Authorized by the Board”) and the articles of association should be checked to ensure that such
a signing arrangement is permissible. This will assist in invoking the presumption under the CPO
that a contract appearing to be duly executed is presumed to be duly executed unless the
contrary is proved.
Summarising In the case of the Cambria Green planning amendment application it is difficult to believe how the
Planning Authority could have formed the opinion that each of the letters of consent was consistent
with LUPAA S33 and conclusively conveyed the proper authorisation of the various companies to the
making of the application.
Does the document cambria – landowner consent.pdf satisfy the conditions set out in
LUPAA.
Does it clearly provide evidence that each of the landowners has given their written
permission to the making of the request?
The steps to establish that each of the landowners had given their written permission to the making
of the request have not been taken.
Signatures
As all the documents were all signed electronically, the receivers (the Planning Authority) consent
should have been sought by the landowner whose signature was attached to the document, to the
signing of the document by this method. The Landowners should have also provided evidence of
their identity.
The consent letter for Emperor Yue Green Agriculture Development Ltd appears to be signed by someone representing Sun Green Agriculture Development Ltd. The Planning Authority should have clarified this.
Authorisation to sign.
The companies with two Directors.
If Liu Kejing was properly authorised (at the time of the writing of the consent letter) by both
Shenglong Hong Kong Investment Limited and by Cambria Green Agriculture Development Pty Ltd to
sign as Agent, there should have been words to the effect “Signatory Authorised by the Board” to
accompany the signature.
The Planning Authority should have also requested that Liu Kejing show by what authority he was
authorised by the boards of each company to act as Agent at the time of writing of the Letters of
Consent.
The companies with only one director.
For these companies the signature should indicate that the signatory is signing as the only Director
of the Company.
Office held by the signatory.
The use of the incorrect suffix (Ltd instead of Pty Ltd) on the consent letter of Cambria Green Agriculture Development Pty. Ltd. is a serious matter that should have been picked up by the Planning Authority and addressed.
Ronald Hu’s Witness Statements. Extracts of Ronald Hu’s Witness Statements are in Italics
Witness Statement 1
1. My name is Ronald Hu. I am the Chief Executive Officer of Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Pty Ltd, the registered office of which is at 13 45-51 Ringwood Street, Ringwood Victoria 3134.
The company Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Pty Ltd does not exist. The company that engaged IreneInc to submit the Planning Amendment Application to Glamorgan Spring Bay Council is Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Management Pty. Ltd. ACN is 604 766- 752 We know from ASIC documents that Ronald Hu is a Director and the Secretary of Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Management Pty. Ltd. Ronald Hu has provided no evidence in either of his two witness statements to substantiate that he has a role in the company beyond that of Director and Secretary.
3. The following foreign registered corporations are also applicants in this matter: (Ronald provided a list of the foreign companies) 4. Kejing Liu is the only director, and is the controller, of each of those corporations. Each is a registered corporation in Hong Kong
As I have shown in a previous submission Shenglong Hong Kong Investment Ltd. actually has two directors, both of whom are shareholders. Ronald Hu concedes this fact in his second Witness Statement.
5. Cambria Green Agriculture Development Pty Ltd is the Australian Registered Corporation that is responsible for co-ordinating the request for the amendment to the Glamorgan Springbay Interim Planning Scheme 2015, that is the subject of the pending hearing before the Tasmanian Planning Commission to which this witness statement relates. It acts as the agent of each of the foreign corporations. In that capacity, I have the authority of each of the foreign corporations and of Mr Kejing Liu to make this witness statement.
The company that actually engaged IreneInc to submit the Planning Amendment Application to Glamorgan Spring Bay Council is Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Management Pty. Ltd. and not Cambria Green Agriculture Development Pty. Ltd.
If Ronald Hu actually intended to assert that the company that submitted the planning amendment
application (Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Management Pty Ltd), or indeed he personally, has authority to act as agent for each of the foreign corporations he has not included evidence of this.
6. As set out in the planning assessment report from Irene Inc Planning dated 19 March 2018, each of the corporations that I have described owns one or more of the parcels of land the
subject of the amendment application. By correspondence of 19 March 2018 addressed to the General Manager of the Glamorgan Springbay Council, Ms Welsh from lreneinc provided written consent from each landowner to the application. I am familiar with and I have read each of those consent forms.
7. Each consent form is signed by Kejing Liu and with the authority of each company.
It has been established that there are two land owning companies that have two directors. Liu Kejing is yet to provide evidence that he does in fact have authority to sign on behalf of these companies.
One of the letters of consent is signed by Siu Lam Suen ( as the landowner)
Despite the assertions of Ronald Hu in this witness statement he has produced no evidence to
support his claims that:
1. Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Management Pty Ltd acts as Agent for each of the
foreign Corporations.
2. Liu Kejing has the authority of each foreign company to sign.
Witness Statement 2
5. As the directors of that company, (Shenglong Hong Kong Investment Ltd (sic)) each of
those individuals is authorised to act as the agent of the company. I have spoken to each of
Mr Li Lihua and Mr Liu Kejing and I have enquired as to whether Mr Liu Kejing had authority
to act as the agent of that company to provide the landowner consent that is in issue in this
proceeding, which is dated 19 March 2018. In substance, I have been informed by each of
these gentlemen that Mr Li Lihua gave his full authority to Mr Liu Kejing to act on behalf of
the company in its land dealings in Australia, and in particular to provide any document
necessary for the purposes of the rezoning application that is the subject of this reference to
the TPC.
I submit that hearsay verbal evidence is insufficient to establish that Liu Kejing has authority to act as
Agent for Shenglong Hong Kong Investment Ltd.
6. The second question that arises from the correspondence from the TPC of 4 July 2019 is
whether Mr Liu Kejing had authority to act as the agent of Cambria Green Agriculture
Development Pty Ltd when he signed the landowner consent form for that corporation which
is also dated 19 March 2018.
There has been no evidence to show that Liu Kejing did actually sign any of the landowner consent
documents.
7. As I explained in my first witness statement there are two directors of that company. One
is Mr Liu Kejing, who resides in China. The other gentleman referred to as Xiaojun Hu is me.
The ASIC records record my Chinese name. In Australia I am generally known as Ronald Hu.
8. I have (Given/Provided? (sic)) full authority to Mr Liu Kejing to act as the agent of
Cambria Green Agriculture Development Pty Ltd in the signing of the landowner consent
form on its behalf dated 19 March 2018.
Despite the assurance of Ronald Hu that he has authorised Liu Kejing to act as Agent for Cambria
Green Agriculture Development Pty Ltd, what is required to establish that Liu Kejing had such
authority is a resolution of the Company Board prior to 19 March 2018.
Ronald Hu has not provided evidence that Liu Kejing has been so authorised.
9. It is also necessary to state that Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Pty Ltd is the
corporate entity appointed by each of the corporations that own the land, to act as their
agent for the taking of all steps that are necessary in relation to the lodgement of the
application for rezoning with the Glamorgan Spring Bay Council, and now in relation to the
hearings before the TPC. I regularly report to each of the directors of the other corporations
as to the progress of the steps that have been undertaken. As the chief executive officer of
Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Pty Ltd, I have its full authority to act as its agent. It is
the appointed agent of each of the other corporations.
Once again Ronald Hu uses the incorrect name for the company he is referring to. (It is actually
Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Management Pty. Ltd.)
He has not provided evidence that he is the CEO of Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism
Management Pty. Ltd.
He does not provide evidence that Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Management Pty. Ltd. has
been appointed as Agent of each of the landowning companies.
And he provides no evidence that he has authorisation to act as an Agent of Cambria Green
Agriculture & Tourism Management Pty. Ltd.
Is Landowner Consent required from the beneficiary of a Burdening
Easement?
Definitions from LUPAA 1993
The definitions of Owner and Land seem to imply that person who has a prescribed interest in the
land should also need to submit a consent letter. i.e. beneficiaries of burdening easements.
I have tried to search the http://www.austlii.edu.au website to determine if there has been a ruling
on this interpretation but have found none mentioned.
owner means –
(a) in the case of a fee simple estate in land, the person in whom that estate vested; or
(b) in the case of land not registered under the Land Titles Act 1980 and subject to a mortgage,
the person having, for the time being, the equity of redemption in that mortgage; or
(c) in the case of land held under a tenancy for life, the person who is the life tenant; or
(d) in the case of land held under a lease for a term of not less than 99 years or for a term of not
less than such other prescribed period, the person who is the lessee of the land; or
(e) in the case of land in respect of which a person has a prescribed interest, that person; or
(f) in the case of Crown land within the meaning of the Crown Lands Act 1976, the Crown in
right of the State of Tasmania –
land includes –
(a) buildings and other structures permanently fixed to land; and
(b) land covered with water; and
(c) water covering land; and
(d) any estate, interest, easement, servitude, privilege or right in or over land;
Examples
and Francis Elizabeth Robinson their heirs assigns
and successors in title of land comprised in Lot 1 on
Diagram No. 8945 to cut for domestic purposes only
all timber and other trees on the said land within
described with free access to cut work and carry away
the same respectively.
part of the said land within described Registered
Tasmanian Planning Commission
GPO Box 1691
HOBART TAS 7001
By email: tpc@planning.tas.gov.au
Dear Ms. Cunningham,
GLAMORGAN SPRING BAY INTERIM PLANNING SCHEME 2015 DRAFT AMENDMENT AM 2018-03 CAMBRIA ESTATE, SWANSEA
I thank the Commission for the opportunity to be heard at the scheduled hearing on the 30th of
August 2019.
The submissions previously lodged that I intend to rely upon are:
3 April
Containing an extract of an email that I sent to Jen Welsh (IreneInc) pointing out possible Typo’s.
It contains a copy of the consent letter of Cambria Green Agriculture Development Pty. Ltd. and
points out that it uses the suffix Ltd instead of Pty. Ltd.
28 April
Showing the consent by Emperor Yue Green Agriculture Development Ltd is signed by Sun Green
Agriculture Development Ltd.
I also say that the Signature “Appears to be that of Liu Kejing.”
10 May
Submission relates to whether a person who has a prescribed interest in the land should also need
to submit a consent letter ie. the beneficiaries of burdening easements.
21 May
Submission points out that Shenglong Hong Kong Investment Ltd has two directors (as shown by the
company return attached to the Witness Statement).
24 May
Submission discusses Ronald Hu’s Witness Statement and suggests Liu Kejing may not have authority
to sign on behalf of Shenglong Hong Kong Investment Ltd. It also points out that there are two
directors of Cambria Green Agriculture Development Pty. Ltd. inferring that again Liu Kejing may not
have authority to sign.
The affidavit material and documentation upon which I intend to rely include:
Electronic Transaction Act 2000, Tasmania
Hong Kong Electronic Transactions Ordinance (“ETO”)
Ireneinc Cover Letter
Ireneinc Owner Consents
Email between myself and Jen Welsh
https://www.kwm.com/en/hk/knowledge/insights/execution-of-documents-in-hong-kong-recent-
developments-20140205
https://www.timothyloh.com/22-publications/featured/84-execution-of-documents
https://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/biglaw/22559-electronic-signatures-a-guide-for-lawyers
https://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/5777/electronic-signatures-and-their-legal-validity-in-.aspx
I request the opportunity to interview Mr Shane Wells
I request that documentation (Company Board Minutes etc.) that shows the resolutions that
empower Liu Kejing to act as Agent on behalf of the companies Shenglong Hong Kong Investment
Ltd and Cambria Green Agriculture Development Pty. Ltd. be produced.
I request to sight a copy of the company constitution or articles of association of both Shenglong
Hong Kong Investment Ltd and Cambria Green Agriculture Development Pty. Ltd.
I also request the opportunity to interview Jen Welsh (or someone from Ireneinc) who can explain
the process of generating the Letters of Consent.
Ireneinc on behalf of their client Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Management Pty Ltd to
amend the Glamorgan Spring Bay Interim Plan 2015.
The amendment covers 12 titles and is over 3000ha of land.
A letter (cambria – landowner consent.pdf) that was intended to convey the consent of the land
owners accompanied this application.
LUPAA states Written Permission of the Owner or Owners required.
[Section 33 Subsection (2A)]
If a request under subsection (1) is in respect of one parcel or several parcels of land covered
by the planning scheme and is requested by a person who is not the owner of the land to
which the proposed amendment applies, the request must be –
(a) signed by the owner or owners of the land; or
(b) accompanied by the written permission of the owner or owners to the making of the
request.
The matter I am raising is this:
Does the document cambria – landowner consent.pdf satisfy the conditions set out in
LUPAA.
Does it clearly provide evidence that each of the landowners has given their written
permission to the making of the request?
This document was apparently assembled by Ireneinc, also on March 19th 2018. It contains
numerous typographic errors, one of which is repeated on every consent letter. It is quite apparent
when viewing the consent letters that the document is a compilation of letters generated by
Ireneinc. In fact the documents properties show this document was converted to PDF format from a
MS Word document, “S33 owners consent proforma – Cambria.docx”
Two of the errors are notable.
1. The Australian company Cambria Green Agriculture Development Pty Ltd is referred to as
Cambria Green Agriculture Development Ltd. The use of the suffix Ltd instead of Pty Ltd is
not a trivial matter.
2. The consent of the company Emperor Yue Green Agriculture Development Ltd has been
given by a representative of the company Sun Green Agriculture Development Ltd.
I realised the errors were likely to be honest mistakes not intended to mislead and so I advised
Ireneinc of them by email assuming that they would take steps to correct the consent letters..
The reply from Ireneinc was “thanks for that. I will review, but I suspect that the typo’s were
probably from my end. This shouldn’t be an issue as the correct landowners signed the consents.”
This reply supports the contention that the letters were generated by Ireneinc.
In his first Witness Statement Ronald Hu states that:
Ms Welsh from lreneinc provided written consent from each landowner to the application.
The majority of the errors appear to be of a clerical nature and might be consistent with what could
be expected of someone trying to meet a deadline.
There are two scenarios possible regarding the signing of the letters.
1. That unsigned letters were forwarded to the landowners and land owning companies for the
attaching of the electronic signatures and returned to Ireneinc for collating into the consent
document.
2. That the electronic signatures were inserted by Ireneinc on behalf of the landowners.
There are nine consent letters of which seven are from land owning companies.
None of the consent letters from companies include the information that one would usually expect
Company legal documents to include.
None of them include a company letterhead. Neither do they include any identifying information
about the company. They do not for instance include their ABN or CR (Hong Kong) number, web site,
address or contact details.
The postal address for each of the land owning companies is again not the correspondence address
shown on their company registration (which is actually Room 802, Yale Industrial Centre, 61-63 Au
Piu Wan St, Fotan, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong for each of the Hong Kong companies).
None of the letters from land owning companies has identified the name or official capacity of the
person whose signature is attached to the letter.
In fact, in my opinion, the letters are inconsistent with what one might usually expect of an official
company legal document.
There is nothing about the documents that shows evidence that the companies had actually sighted
the consent documents and given their written permission to the making of the request prior to it
being submitted to Glamorgan Spring Bay Council on the 19th March 2018.
Electronic Signatures In my submission 28 April, I remarked that the attached signature appeared to be that of Liu Kejing.
It is an Electronic Signature.
A similar Chinese mark is affixed to all the consent letters apart from that of Siu Lam Suen.
The mark attached to Sun Green Agriculture Ltd is similar but not identical.
The attaching of such marks in lieu of a written signature is foreseen in LUPAA
LUPAA makes reference to the use of electronic signatures:-
LUPAA
PART 6 - Miscellaneous Division 1 - Electronic database and documents
(4) If under this Act a submission in relation to a matter may be given to a relevant person by
another person, the submission may be made to the relevant person by the other person by
transmitting the submission by an electronic method specified in relation to the matter under
subsection (3) by the relevant person.
(5) A reference in this section to the giving of a relevant document includes a reference to the
issuing, provision or service, or other means of delivery, of the document.
(6) If a relevant document, referred to in a provision of this Act, may be given by a person in
accordance with this section, a reference in a provision of this Act to a signature of a person
on the document is to be taken to include a reference to an electronic signature, of the
person, on the document.
(7) In this section –
relevant document means –
(a) a notice (including a notice in writing and a planning purposes notice), direction (including
a direction in writing), declaration and invitation; and
(b) a draft planning scheme, draft interim planning scheme, planning scheme, interim
planning scheme, draft amendment to a planning scheme and a draft amendment to an
interim planning scheme; and
(c) a permit, a special planning permit and a dispensation; and
(d) a statement, submission, recommendation, modification, requirement, application,
approval, report and any other document (including a document specified in a provision of
this Act to be a document in writing);
relevant person means –
What’s an electronic signature?
A good working definition is that an electronic signature is a visible representation of a person’s name or mark, placed by a person on a document or in a communication, by electronic or electronic and mechanical means, to identify the person and indicate that they put their mind to adopting the document or communication.
An electronic signature is different in this sense from a digital signature, which is concerned with cryptographic authentication technology rather than a person signalling their assent to a document by marking it.
Common examples of electronic signatures include a person typing their name in an email or word document, pasting a digitised image of their physical signature, selecting an option in e-signing software, signing a soft copy of a document with a stylus or finger on a touchscreen, or using another form of biometric identification.
Where an electronic signature is placed by an agent of the signatory
Counterparties may be uncomfortable accepting a document signed electronically by an agent, such as a personal assistant, affixing the principal’s electronic signature.
To deal with this concern, where an agent is signing a document electronically, the principal should directly inform the relevant counterparty that the agent will place the principal’s electronic signature on their behalf to minimise the risk that the contract will be challenged because of questions regarding the validity of the signature. If the signature needs to be witnessed, the agent placing the signature shouldn’t also be the witness.
In the case of the consent letters, unless the landowner personally affixed the signature to the
consent letter, whoever was the person that placed the signature would be considered to be an
agent. In this case advice should have been provided to the Planning Authority by the principal
(signatory) that the agent (Ireneinc) would be placing the signature on their behalf.
In Tasmania the requirements for electronic signatures are prescribed by
Electronic Transactions Act 2000
7. Signatures
(1) If, under a law of this jurisdiction, the signature of a person is required, that requirement is
taken to have been met in relation to an electronic communication if –
(a) a method is used to identify the person and to indicate the person's intention in respect of
the information communicated; and
(b) the method used was either –
(i) as reliable as appropriate for the purpose for which the electronic communication was
generated or communicated, in the light of all the circumstances, including any relevant
agreement; or
(ii) proven in fact to have fulfilled the functions described in paragraph (a) , by itself or together
with further evidence; and
(c) the person to whom the signature is required to be given consents to that requirement being
met by way of the use of the method mentioned in paragraph (a) .
(2) This section does not affect the operation of any other law of this jurisdiction that makes
provision for or in relation to requiring –
(a) an electronic communication to contain an electronic signature (however described); or
(b) an electronic communication to contain a unique identification in an electronic form; or
(c) a particular method to be used in relation to an electronic communication to identify the
originator of the communication and to indicate the originator's intention in respect of the
information communicated.
(3) The reference in subsection (1) to a law that requires a signature includes a reference to a
law that provides consequences for the absence of a signature.
Hong Kong law for Electronic signing of documents is similar
https://www.kwm.com/en/hk/knowledge/insights/execution-of-documents-in-hong-kong-recent-
developments-20140205
Companies are no longer required to have a common seal
Under the NCO, Hong Kong companies will no longer be required to have a common seal. If a
company chooses to adopt a seal, then, as in the past, the seal must be a metallic seal with the
company's name engraved in legible form and it should be applied in accordance with the company's
Articles of Association.
When the NCO comes into effect, a company may simply execute a document by having it signed by
the sole director (in the case of a company with only one director) or by two directors or one
director and the company secretary (in the case of a company with more than one director). A
company may execute documents this way even if it does have a common seal and this will have the
same effect as executing a document under the company's common seal.
Where a Hong Kong company executes a document this way without a company seal then
purchasers in good faith for valuable consideration will be entitled to rely on that execution as being
valid execution by the company.
What Is Required For An E-Signature To Be Valid In Hong Kong
The use of electronic signatures is governed by the Electronic Transaction Ordinance (ETO) Cap.
553, and within this piece of legislation is the definition of “electronic signature”.
It is defined under Section 2 as “any letters, characters, numbers or other symbols in digital form
attached to or logically associated with an electronic record, and executed or adopted for the
purpose of authenticating or approving the electronic record”.
What this means is any electronic depiction of what is usually a written signature will be enough on
an electronic document. It could literally be a happy face, if you so wish to use that as your
signature. The definition is very loosely defined for the ease of people to do business. Some people
may be illiterate, and for them, any mark they make electronically will have the same legal effect as
a written one.
The Electronic Transactions Ordinance (Cap. 553) ("ETO")
In Hong Kong the rules in the ETO for electronic signatures: Section 6(1) of the ETO sets out three
requirements for an electronic signature to be valid when the transaction in question does not
involve anyone related to a government entity:
1. the person whose signature is required by law to be given uses a method to attach the
electronic signature or associate the electronic signature with an electronic record to
identify himself and indicate his authentication/approval of the information in the electronic
record—e-signature must be part of the e-document;
2. the method indicated in (1) is reliable and appropriate so that the information in the
electronic record is communicated; and
3. the person to whom the signature is given consents to the use of the method by the person
whose signature is required by law to be given—get consent
If all three simple criteria are fulfilled, the electronic signature itself will be legally binding.
Did Liu Kejing have authority to sign on behalf of the companies that he was not the sole
director of?
Signing by one director when there are two on more directors There are two land owning companies that have two Directors and the consent letter for each
contains only one signature. It is assumed in each case that it is the mark of Liu Kejing
Cambria Green Agriculture Development Pty. Ltd.
This is an Australian company and its directors at the time of the consent letter were Liu Kejing
and Hu Xiaojun. Hu Xiaojun is also the company secretary. Liu Kejing is the only shareholder.
Shenglong Hong Kong Investment Limited
Shenglong Hong Kong Investment Limited is a company registered in Hong Kong and also has
two Directors; Li Lihau and Liu Kejing. Both directors are shareholders with Li Lihau being the
majority shareholder.
For each of the Hong Kong companies Chan Man Poh is listed as Secretary.
For all the Hong Kong companies apart from (Shenglong Hong Kong Investment Limited) Liu Kejing is
the only Director (and only shareholder).
In Australia the provisions for directors (or agents) signing on behalf of a
company are: Under sections 126 and 127 of the Corporations Act 2001, a distinction is drawn between execution
by the company itself (which is governed by section 127), and execution by an agent on behalf of the
company (which is governed by section 126).
Section 127 provides for execution of a document with or without using the common seal. When
the common seal is not used and where a company has more than one director, section 127 requires
that at least two directors or a director and a company secretary of the company sign a contract in
order to bind the company.
CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 NO. 50, 2001
126 Agent exercising a company’s power to make contracts
(1) A company’s power to make, vary, ratify or discharge a contract may be exercised by an
individual acting with the company’s express or implied authority and on behalf of the company. The power
may be exercised without using a common seal.
(2) This section does not affect the operation of a law that requires a particular procedure to be
complied with in relation to the contract.
Agent exercising a company's power to make contracts
Section 126 of the Act states that a company's power to make, vary, ratify or discharge a contract may be exercised by an individual acting with the company's express or implied authority and on behalf of the company.
This power may be exercised without using the common seal, so a company could authorise a director or other agent to sign on its behalf.
However, in these circumstances the other party to the contract should require proof of the authority of the individual to sign on behalf of the company, such as a copy of a resolution of the sole director as the other party cannot rely on the assumptions in section 129 of the Act that the document has been
properly executed.
Liu Kejing could only sign the consent letter on behalf of Cambria Green Agriculture Development
Pty. Ltd. if he was relying on the provisions of 126 “Agent exercising a company’s power to make
contracts”
To sign as Agent he would need to have been so appointed by resolution of the board or otherwise
authorised.
developments-20140205
https://www.timothyloh.com/22-publications/featured/84-execution-of-documents
Hong Kong Companies The new Companies Ordinance (“CO”), introduced in 2014, establishes a statutory regime for the execution of documents, including simple contracts and deeds. Under the CO regime, a Hong Kong company may execute a simple contract in writing:
in the case of a company with only 1 director, by having it signed by the director on the company’s behalf; or
in the case of a company with 2 or more directors, by having it signed on the company’s behalf by (x) 2 directors, or (y) any director and the company secretary.
It is significant to note that the CO regime is not exhaustive but permissive. Hong Kong
companies may also execute written contracts pursuant to board resolutions in compliance with
their articles of association. Thus, for example, assuming no provisions to the contrary in its
articles of association, a Hong Kong company may enter into a simple contract in writing by
appointing an individual to sign on its behalf even though the individual is not a director and
even though there may be 2 or more directors. Similarly, for example, a Hong Kong company
may execute a deed by affixing its common seal in accordance with its articles of association
pursuant to a board resolution.
Signing by a Company Agent
Where a Hong Kong company executes a document otherwise than pursuant to the CO regime,
the basis of the authority of the signatory or signatories should be stated (e.g. “Signatory
Authorized by the Board”) and the articles of association should be checked to ensure that such
a signing arrangement is permissible. This will assist in invoking the presumption under the CPO
that a contract appearing to be duly executed is presumed to be duly executed unless the
contrary is proved.
Summarising In the case of the Cambria Green planning amendment application it is difficult to believe how the
Planning Authority could have formed the opinion that each of the letters of consent was consistent
with LUPAA S33 and conclusively conveyed the proper authorisation of the various companies to the
making of the application.
Does the document cambria – landowner consent.pdf satisfy the conditions set out in
LUPAA.
Does it clearly provide evidence that each of the landowners has given their written
permission to the making of the request?
The steps to establish that each of the landowners had given their written permission to the making
of the request have not been taken.
Signatures
As all the documents were all signed electronically, the receivers (the Planning Authority) consent
should have been sought by the landowner whose signature was attached to the document, to the
signing of the document by this method. The Landowners should have also provided evidence of
their identity.
The consent letter for Emperor Yue Green Agriculture Development Ltd appears to be signed by someone representing Sun Green Agriculture Development Ltd. The Planning Authority should have clarified this.
Authorisation to sign.
The companies with two Directors.
If Liu Kejing was properly authorised (at the time of the writing of the consent letter) by both
Shenglong Hong Kong Investment Limited and by Cambria Green Agriculture Development Pty Ltd to
sign as Agent, there should have been words to the effect “Signatory Authorised by the Board” to
accompany the signature.
The Planning Authority should have also requested that Liu Kejing show by what authority he was
authorised by the boards of each company to act as Agent at the time of writing of the Letters of
Consent.
The companies with only one director.
For these companies the signature should indicate that the signatory is signing as the only Director
of the Company.
Office held by the signatory.
The use of the incorrect suffix (Ltd instead of Pty Ltd) on the consent letter of Cambria Green Agriculture Development Pty. Ltd. is a serious matter that should have been picked up by the Planning Authority and addressed.
Ronald Hu’s Witness Statements. Extracts of Ronald Hu’s Witness Statements are in Italics
Witness Statement 1
1. My name is Ronald Hu. I am the Chief Executive Officer of Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Pty Ltd, the registered office of which is at 13 45-51 Ringwood Street, Ringwood Victoria 3134.
The company Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Pty Ltd does not exist. The company that engaged IreneInc to submit the Planning Amendment Application to Glamorgan Spring Bay Council is Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Management Pty. Ltd. ACN is 604 766- 752 We know from ASIC documents that Ronald Hu is a Director and the Secretary of Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Management Pty. Ltd. Ronald Hu has provided no evidence in either of his two witness statements to substantiate that he has a role in the company beyond that of Director and Secretary.
3. The following foreign registered corporations are also applicants in this matter: (Ronald provided a list of the foreign companies) 4. Kejing Liu is the only director, and is the controller, of each of those corporations. Each is a registered corporation in Hong Kong
As I have shown in a previous submission Shenglong Hong Kong Investment Ltd. actually has two directors, both of whom are shareholders. Ronald Hu concedes this fact in his second Witness Statement.
5. Cambria Green Agriculture Development Pty Ltd is the Australian Registered Corporation that is responsible for co-ordinating the request for the amendment to the Glamorgan Springbay Interim Planning Scheme 2015, that is the subject of the pending hearing before the Tasmanian Planning Commission to which this witness statement relates. It acts as the agent of each of the foreign corporations. In that capacity, I have the authority of each of the foreign corporations and of Mr Kejing Liu to make this witness statement.
The company that actually engaged IreneInc to submit the Planning Amendment Application to Glamorgan Spring Bay Council is Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Management Pty. Ltd. and not Cambria Green Agriculture Development Pty. Ltd.
If Ronald Hu actually intended to assert that the company that submitted the planning amendment
application (Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Management Pty Ltd), or indeed he personally, has authority to act as agent for each of the foreign corporations he has not included evidence of this.
6. As set out in the planning assessment report from Irene Inc Planning dated 19 March 2018, each of the corporations that I have described owns one or more of the parcels of land the
subject of the amendment application. By correspondence of 19 March 2018 addressed to the General Manager of the Glamorgan Springbay Council, Ms Welsh from lreneinc provided written consent from each landowner to the application. I am familiar with and I have read each of those consent forms.
7. Each consent form is signed by Kejing Liu and with the authority of each company.
It has been established that there are two land owning companies that have two directors. Liu Kejing is yet to provide evidence that he does in fact have authority to sign on behalf of these companies.
One of the letters of consent is signed by Siu Lam Suen ( as the landowner)
Despite the assertions of Ronald Hu in this witness statement he has produced no evidence to
support his claims that:
1. Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Management Pty Ltd acts as Agent for each of the
foreign Corporations.
2. Liu Kejing has the authority of each foreign company to sign.
Witness Statement 2
5. As the directors of that company, (Shenglong Hong Kong Investment Ltd (sic)) each of
those individuals is authorised to act as the agent of the company. I have spoken to each of
Mr Li Lihua and Mr Liu Kejing and I have enquired as to whether Mr Liu Kejing had authority
to act as the agent of that company to provide the landowner consent that is in issue in this
proceeding, which is dated 19 March 2018. In substance, I have been informed by each of
these gentlemen that Mr Li Lihua gave his full authority to Mr Liu Kejing to act on behalf of
the company in its land dealings in Australia, and in particular to provide any document
necessary for the purposes of the rezoning application that is the subject of this reference to
the TPC.
I submit that hearsay verbal evidence is insufficient to establish that Liu Kejing has authority to act as
Agent for Shenglong Hong Kong Investment Ltd.
6. The second question that arises from the correspondence from the TPC of 4 July 2019 is
whether Mr Liu Kejing had authority to act as the agent of Cambria Green Agriculture
Development Pty Ltd when he signed the landowner consent form for that corporation which
is also dated 19 March 2018.
There has been no evidence to show that Liu Kejing did actually sign any of the landowner consent
documents.
7. As I explained in my first witness statement there are two directors of that company. One
is Mr Liu Kejing, who resides in China. The other gentleman referred to as Xiaojun Hu is me.
The ASIC records record my Chinese name. In Australia I am generally known as Ronald Hu.
8. I have (Given/Provided? (sic)) full authority to Mr Liu Kejing to act as the agent of
Cambria Green Agriculture Development Pty Ltd in the signing of the landowner consent
form on its behalf dated 19 March 2018.
Despite the assurance of Ronald Hu that he has authorised Liu Kejing to act as Agent for Cambria
Green Agriculture Development Pty Ltd, what is required to establish that Liu Kejing had such
authority is a resolution of the Company Board prior to 19 March 2018.
Ronald Hu has not provided evidence that Liu Kejing has been so authorised.
9. It is also necessary to state that Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Pty Ltd is the
corporate entity appointed by each of the corporations that own the land, to act as their
agent for the taking of all steps that are necessary in relation to the lodgement of the
application for rezoning with the Glamorgan Spring Bay Council, and now in relation to the
hearings before the TPC. I regularly report to each of the directors of the other corporations
as to the progress of the steps that have been undertaken. As the chief executive officer of
Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Pty Ltd, I have its full authority to act as its agent. It is
the appointed agent of each of the other corporations.
Once again Ronald Hu uses the incorrect name for the company he is referring to. (It is actually
Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Management Pty. Ltd.)
He has not provided evidence that he is the CEO of Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism
Management Pty. Ltd.
He does not provide evidence that Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Management Pty. Ltd. has
been appointed as Agent of each of the landowning companies.
And he provides no evidence that he has authorisation to act as an Agent of Cambria Green
Agriculture & Tourism Management Pty. Ltd.
Is Landowner Consent required from the beneficiary of a Burdening
Easement?
Definitions from LUPAA 1993
The definitions of Owner and Land seem to imply that person who has a prescribed interest in the
land should also need to submit a consent letter. i.e. beneficiaries of burdening easements.
I have tried to search the http://www.austlii.edu.au website to determine if there has been a ruling
on this interpretation but have found none mentioned.
owner means –
(a) in the case of a fee simple estate in land, the person in whom that estate vested; or
(b) in the case of land not registered under the Land Titles Act 1980 and subject to a mortgage,
the person having, for the time being, the equity of redemption in that mortgage; or
(c) in the case of land held under a tenancy for life, the person who is the life tenant; or
(d) in the case of land held under a lease for a term of not less than 99 years or for a term of not
less than such other prescribed period, the person who is the lessee of the land; or
(e) in the case of land in respect of which a person has a prescribed interest, that person; or
(f) in the case of Crown land within the meaning of the Crown Lands Act 1976, the Crown in
right of the State of Tasmania –
land includes –
(a) buildings and other structures permanently fixed to land; and
(b) land covered with water; and
(c) water covering land; and
(d) any estate, interest, easement, servitude, privilege or right in or over land;
Examples
and Francis Elizabeth Robinson their heirs assigns
and successors in title of land comprised in Lot 1 on
Diagram No. 8945 to cut for domestic purposes only
all timber and other trees on the said land within
described with free access to cut work and carry away
the same respectively.
part of the said land within described Registered