this product is unavailable for purchase using a firm account, please log in with a personal account to make this purchase.

Letters

Every Issue

Cite as: August 2015 89 (8) LIJ, p.08

Unsolicited

Access all areas

The article “Access all areas” LIJ July 2015 contained some very useful information for practitioners acting for landowners considering objecting to the installation of a telecommunications facility.

In addition to the suggestions by the author, practitioners should review a number of the cases about the installation of facilities. For example, Hurstville City Council v Hutchison 3G Australia Pty Ltd (2003) 200 ALR 308, Hutchison 3G Australia & Ors v Casey CC and Ors [2002] VCAT 247, Hutchison 3G Australia Pty Ltd v Monash CC [2003] VCAT 508, Hutchison 3G Australia Pty Ltd v Director of Housing & Anor [2004] VSCA 99.

Practitioners may also be interested in:

  • information available from EMR Australia (www.emraustralia.com.au); and
  • action kit on mobile phone towers available at www.davidshoebridge.org.au.
  • In my experience landowners usually want a lot of information from carriers such as:

  • details of the carrier’s insurance for injury to anyone on the land;
  • an explanation as to what happens if the carrier fails to remove the facility at the end of the term;
  • confirmation that the use of the land by the carrier does not constitute a nuisance;
  • details of the rent payable to other landowners by the carrier to assist the landowner to determine whether the rent being offered is a market rent;
  • the rights of other carriers to collocate once the first facility is established;
  • the amount of compensation payable to a carrier where the owner wants to subdivide the land after the facility has been installed.
  • Practitioners should also be aware that some of the clauses in telecommunications leases are unusual and unacceptable. For this reason the practitioner acting for a landowner should carefully consider the need to seek amendments to the lease and to request that certain additional clauses be included to properly protect the landowner, for example, a clause imposing an obligation on the carrier to cease its use where it interferes with existing uses.

    Phillip Nolan, Sole practitioner
    New design more contemporary

    I like the clean, uncluttered redesign of the Law Institute Journal launched in July 2015.

    The scheme of arrangement is more logical and there is a better sense of flow.

    With better graphics and new titles it’s a more contemporary and better presented package altogether.

    But don’t go resting on your laurels.

    I await the digital version, accessible via an app and inspired by Wired, The Economist and other exemplars of digital excellence, but with embedded video clips, links to CPD presentations, Twitter, Facebook and so on.

    Tony Burke, Director and Business Law Specialist, Burke & Associates Lawyers
    Letters to the editor

    Email: letters@liv.asn.au

    Fax: 9607 9451

    Mail: LIJ managing editor Carolyn Ford, GPO Box 263, Melbourne 3001; or DX 350 Melbourne.

    We reserve the right to edit letters and to republish them in their original or edited form on the internet or in other media. Letters must include a phone number and address for authentication.

    Comments




    Leave message



     
     Security code
     
    LIV Social
    Footer