CASE NOTES

Breskvar v Wall (1971):

B mortgage with P signed blank T. P filled in Ws name (grandson). W sold to C.
Principle/authority for:
HC that TT is a system of title by registration !er Barwi"k C#.
$biter di"t%m a!!ro&al to immediate indefeasibility.
o '() no *%st a!!ro&ed a!!roa"h already seen in Mayer v Coe; Frazer v Walker.
o +n"onsisten"y) deferred a!!roa"h in Gibbs v Messer.
o Corre"tness) ,n"lear HC has not re&isited the iss%e yet ass%med "orre"t.
-ra%d e."e!tion) agents fra%d "an be im!%ted on !rin"i!al/ e&en if !rin"i!al does not know.
o +n"onsisten"y) '$T in"onsistent with Schulz v Cor!ill "ro#eries (19$9) disting%ished
Post!oning "ond%"t) holding o%t eg. signing Transfer e&en tho%gh *%st 0ging.
Bahr v %icolay (%o &) (19'')
B transfer to '. ' leases B with o!tion to reb%y. ' transfer to T. (and &al%e rises. T ref%ses to gi&e
ba"k to B for reb%y !ri"e.
Principle/authority for:
Fraud:
Wilson1Brennan1Toohey) fra%d%lent intention m%st be formed P2+$2 to registration. 'ot
fra%d%lent to de!art from !romise gi&en !rior to registration
0ason13awson ##) -ra%d sho%ld not be limited to dishonesty that takes !la"e P2+$2 to
registration
o '() affirms (oke )e! v "or S!ee*ha+ ,191-.
o +n"onsisten"y) 3isting%ished from (eros v /erara (199&) P ne&er agreed.
o Corre"t) affirmed S*o!lo*0 "y (1 v Choe (1991)
Personal Equities:
P4 arises where) reg !erson agrees to 5
nd
!erson to be s%b*e"t to %nreg 6
rd
!erson.
o '() 4."e!tion first re"ogni7ed Barry v 2ei1er (1913), b%t added another e.am!le sit%ation
here.
o Corre"t) affirmed S*o!lo*0 "y (1 v Choe (1991)
Barry v 2ei1er (1913)
B (reg) wants 0g b%t signs T to 8. 8 gets mortgage from H (%nreg).
Principle/authority for:
HC re"ognition of P4 e."e!tion where)
9. 2eg !ersons "ond%"t "a%se or "ontrib%tes to "reation of third !arties %nreg interest: or
5. 2eg !erson "reates %nreg interest
Extent that this as ne la:
'o !ro&ision in 2P ;"t.
HC -+28T re"ogni7ed and a!!lied P4 in this "ase.
MM( v Gos#er (1991)
0rs < gets 0g. 0r gets more debt and forged her sig reg. 00( %sed CT witho%t 0rss "onsent.
Principle/authority for:
'8W C$;) 5=9 a%thority) 0ahoney (>irby agreeing) and 0eagher (dissent).
Personal e?%ity arises where) P24=4@+8T+'< 24(;T+$'8H+P between the 0gor and 0gee. +f
0gee registers forged mortgage by %sing CT witho%t 0gors !ermission brea"h of fid%"iary
obligations.
Extent that this as ne la:
Whilst P4 re"ogni7ed in Bahr v Nicolay and Barry v Heider this ty!e1e.am!le based the
%na%thori7ed %se of CT is '4W.
Extent of inconsistency ith pre! cases:
;rg%ably in"onsistent with Mayer v Coe (1968)/ where a forged mortgage (reg) was indefeasible
(no e."e!tion)) 0eagher (dissent) stated this.
Correctness of decision in li"ht of other authorities:
;rg%ed in Grgic v ANZ Banking (1994) that MML v Go!er in"orre"t. B,T C$; a&oided
de"iding "orre"tness et"/ by disting%ishing it on the fa"ts. < & ;'A had no !re=e.isting rel.
Windeyer (%nre!orted obiter di"ta) in "an#one v $e%!ac (1999) "ast do%bt) saying that handing
o&er of mortgage ne"essarily in&ol&es %se of CT witho%t !ermission. ;nd ne&er in his !ra"ti"e (as
"on&eyan"ing soli"itor) did they seek "onsent.
TH,8) C%rrently good law d%e to 5 9 a%thority/ b%t wo%ld be %! to HC de"ision to affirm1re*e"t.
2ei1 v 4elia*ce Fi*a*ce (19'-)
H sold Connell +n&estments for B9CD>. C !aid de!osit. H lends DE> to C (&endor finan"e by
mortgage). C is !art of 0r 0">ay gro%! of "om!anies. H is !ers%aded by 0">ay to %se 0">ays
em!loyee <ibby as soli"itor. H gi&es < the CT and signed T to finish off sale to C. 9EE> balan"e
8T+(( owing. C enters into D other mortgages. Had H PP "ond%"tF
Principle/authority for:
When determining !riorities between %nreg interest determine the better e?%ity by an
e.amination in rele&ant "ir"%mstan"es.
PP "ond%"t) !remat%re release (e.e"%tion of re"ei!t "la%se) when P has '$T been !aid yet.
o 0ason13eane #) irrele&ant whether soli"itor or not. H had gi&en CT1T to < knowing
em!loyee1agent of C+ PP.
o <ibbs10%r!hy #) H hand o&er CT1T (re"ei!t "la%se saying P had !aid) re! that C has
!aid 2 relies on re! esto!!el (sto! H de!arting from re!).
'(1Consisten"y) !re& re"ogni7ed in (loy1s Ba*k v Bullock ,1'9$.:
56C Fi*a*ce v Coure*ay (19$-)
P (3enton) had noti"e of Cs interest in ;%stin (G)s land. H4(3) P not !rote"ted ;'3 neither were
3s 0gees (in"l +;C) a%th for abo&e !oints.
Principle/authority for:
To be dealing registrable !rote"ted %nder sH6;)
o 'o noti"e of %nreg interest !re=8ettlement
3iff o!inion between >itto (noti"e is irrele&ant) and Taylor (only !rote"ted if
no noti"e !re settlement).
o 0%st be the ne.t dealing registrable if ne.t dealing not registrable/ then nobody "an
en*oy !rote"tion.
Correctness of decision in li"ht of other authorities:
Taylors &iew !referred in Merio* v Mc(auri* 7 /ai (197$)