LAW316 Class Presentation Notes & Draft

LAW316 Class Presentation Notes & Draft - In what...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
In what circumstances will the title of a registered proprietor be   defeasible for fraud? Indefeasibility of Title: The registered holder acquires a conclusive title subject to other  interests registered on that title and established statutory and non- statutory exceptions. The effect of indefeasibility is clearly set out in the paramountcy provisions  contained in the Torrens legislation in each State/ NSW Real Property Act 1900 s42(1): The registered proprietor of land shall, except in case of fraud, hold  such land subject to such encumbrances as are recorded on the relevant  folio of the Register but absolutely free from all other encumbrances  whatsoever, except: The estate or interest of a proprietor claiming the same land under a prior  folio of the register; As regards any portion of the land that by wrong description of parcels or  boundaries is included in the folio of the Register or instrument evidencing  the title of such proprietor not being a purchaser for valuable consideration  or deriving from or through such a purchaser. Basically, the paramountcy provisions ensure that a registered holder  acquires a guaranteed statutory title, subject only to other registered  encumbrances and established statutory and non-statutory exceptions. Indefeasibility of registered title refers to the fact that every time the title is  registered, it is recreated anew and acquires a greater level of registered  protection that it would have otherwise received. STATUTORY EXCEPTIONS TO INDEFEASABILITY Statutory Fraud
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Fraud is an express exception to indefeasibility in all jurisdictions. Fraud isn’t defined in the legislation other than to state that mere notice of  the existence of a prior interest does not in itself constitute fraud. The question of what does constitute fraud has been left for judicial  determination. Under general law, fraud has both legal and equitable manifestations. Common law fraud: Requires proof of deceit Equitable fraud: Can be committed wherever it is clear that an unfair consequence may  arise. Nocton v Lord Ashburton [1914] AC 932:     It is a mistake to suppose that an actual intention to cheat must  always be proved. Not moral fraud but breach of the sort of obligation that  is enforced by a court. Assets Company Ltd v Mere Roihi [1905] AC 176:     A broader approach to the interpretation of fraud. Fraud will exist in circumstances where a registered proprietor intended to 
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 05/26/2010 for the course ECON 1160 taught by Professor Byrke during the Spring '10 term at Macomb Community College.

Page1 / 9

LAW316 Class Presentation Notes & Draft - In what...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

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