{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

There are policy reasons it varies from state to

Info iconThis preview shows pages 36–38. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
There are policy reasons. It varies from state to state. Although in NSW and Vic s42 is identical there are different positions. In Vic ( King v Smale ) registered volunteers do not receive indefeasibility. S42 does not mention whether you are a purchaser / volunteer. S43 does not talk about a purchaser but does mention purchase/ consideration. S44(2) any bona fide purchaser for value of consideration. King (1958) Adam J: Registered volunteers do not require indefeasibility from prior unregistered interests. He observed all of the provisions which talk about the indefeasibility of purchasers and concludes that s42 means “purchasers for value” when they become registered should receive indefeasibility. NB: This case was decided where deferred indefeasibility was the fashion. S42 not so important any more. 36
Background image of page 36

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Danovitch Facts: Cotect was the RP. Sold a life estate to a woman pursuant to a specifically enforceable K of sale. Left everything to his son in his will. Son became RP of the land. Woman claimed that the son was subject to her prior equitable interest because he was a volunteer. Priestly J: A registered volunteer had an indefeasible interest and was not subject to prior unregistered interests. He decided upon his position because of immediate indefeasibility as per Frasier v Walker . This makes indefeasibility central to the registration. Questioned whether a volunteer with notice might not be in the same position. Facts: Father was a RP. Worked farm with 4 sons. Each worked on the basis that they would each receive a portion for the farm. To save on stamp duty he left the property to his grandson. Ernie was unhappy and claimed that he had a prior unregistered equitable interest pursuant to a common intention constructive trust. Because Harold took as a volunteer his interest was not indefeasible. Held: Volunteers do not receive indefeasibility. Critical of NSW approach. Coldrie J: Is it fair to allow someone who has not paid anything for their rights over a prior equitable interest holder who has paid for their rights. Farrah Constructions v Say-Dee (2007) Facts: Wife and daughters were registered volunteers. Trust funds were said to be misapplied. Held in obiter: suggested that the NSW position could gain some ground. Should a volunteer receive indefeasibility? May encourage fraud to apply. Why should a failure of consideration be an issue! Compensation S110 - If your solicitor has wronged you, you may claim against the solicitors indemnity fund. - An inability to claim may result from overriding legislation, a shortfall for a value claimed by a mortgagee. - You can apply to the registrar at s111. The registrar will take it to court. - Registrar will seek to recover from the person responsible. Felis
Background image of page 37
Image of page 38
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page36 / 47

There are policy reasons It varies from state to state...

This preview shows document pages 36 - 38. Sign up to view the full document.

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