LAW316 Lecture 7 - TORRENS TITLE 2 1 LAW316 Lecture 7 1...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–7. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
PRIORITIES OF TORRENS TITLE LAND - THE CAVEAT SYSTEM  AND S43A 1 LAW316 - Lecture 7 1 TORRENS TITLE 2
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Knowing Receipt Constructive Trust 2 Barnes v Addy   (1874) 9 Ch App 244 established that  a  person can become a constructive trustee of  property if they: knowingly receive trust property;  knowingly assist in a breach of trust; or act as trustee without authority.
Background image of page 2
Knowing Receipt Constructive Trusts Cases 3 1. Tara Shire Council v Garner  [2002] QCA   232  2. Macquarie Bank V Sixty Fourth Throne [1998] 3 VR 133 3. LHK Nominees Pty Ltd v Maureen Ada Kenworthy  [2002]  WASCA 291
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd  (2007) 81 ALJR  1107  4 Say-Dee  Constructions and Farah Constructions Pty Ltd (Farah) entered  into a joint venture to purchase and redevelop the property in Burwood. DA for the property was refused on the basis that the site was too  narrow. Council said an amalgamation of adjoining property was  necessary. Mr Elias (Farah) bought surrounding properties with the knowledge of  Say-Dee, putting the properties into the names of his wife and  daughters.  NSW Court of Appeal held: Farah owed Say-Dee a fiduciary duty which had been breached The remedy was the imposition of a constructive trust The wife and daughters had knowingly received this trust property and so were liable under  the principles of recipient liability Although not argued by the parties Tobias JA held that the principles of unjust enrichment  (Professor Birks) were to apply to the case
Background image of page 4
Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd  (2007) 81 ALJR  1107  5 The High Court overturned the NSW Court of Appeal  decision Gummow J:  "To the lawyer whose mind has been moulded by civilian  influences, the theory may come first, and the source of the  theory may be the writings of jurists not the decisions of  judges. However, that is not the way in which a system  based on case law develops; over time, general principle is  derived from judicial decisions upon particular instances,  not the other way around." 
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Some Conclusions on Fraud and  in personam  Exceptions to  Indefeasibility 6 Fraud under the  Real Property Act  1900 NSW    means  actual  fraud and  requires some element of personal dishonesty; Mere notice does not  equal fraud. Wilful blindness may amount to fraud, but simply failing to  make enquiries is not willful blindness. Fraud as an exception to indefeasibility must relate to acts undertaken 
Background image of page 6
Image of page 7
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 60

LAW316 Lecture 7 - TORRENS TITLE 2 1 LAW316 Lecture 7 1...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 7. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online