100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 98 - 100 out of 114 pages.
: what are you discussing, issues in paper. Facts: brief, decide which are relevant. Decision + Rationale: was the decision warranted, was reasoning fair, did the court use authority,was the decision unanimous, what was the reasoning, did it change/introduce law? Analysis: do you agree, did it achieve what the court intended, has it injured previous authority, will it be followed, what should the result have been? Conclude: final thoughts.Breskvar v Wall (1971) 126 CLR 376General Court – High Court of Australia (HCA)Judges – Barwick CJ, McTiernan, Menzies, Windeyer, Owen, Walsh & Gibbs JJ (Unanimously dismissed the appeal)Parties: oEmilie and Franc Breskvar (appellants)oGeorge Walter Wall (1st respondent)oGeorge Petrie (2nd respondent)oAlban Pty Ltd (3rd respondent) Area of Law – Torrens Title – Immediate Indefeasibility – Fraudulent registration/instrument Facts Judicial History – Appeal from Supreme Court of QLDBreskvars were Registered Proprietors (RP) of Torrens Title land – handed over the CT + signed/executed a blank memorandum of transfer to Petrie as mortgagee of the propertyPetrie inserted his grandson (Wall’s) name onto the transfer and lodged for registrationWall become RP + was aware of Petrie’s fraudulent conduct (ie, the agreement between B and P)Wall entered into contract of sale with Alban Pty Ltd (who checked the register and saw Wall was the RP)BUT before registration of Alban’s purchase was complete – Breskvar’s lodged a caveat Issues Whether registration confers immediate indefeasibility upon a void instrument Held Found in favour of Wall – employing the immediate indefeasibility doctrine – “a registration which results from a void instrument is effective according to the terms of the registration”Applied Frazer v Walker  – void instrument was effective as a result of registration under TT – Wall’s registration of the transfer was validated through registration despite his knowledge of the fraud – s 43 of RPA protects ‘mere notice’ (he was not involved in the fraud)Court used the principles in Abigail v Lapin  to determine the priority of the competing equitable interests oCompeting equitable interests – between Alban Pty + Breskvar’soBreskvar’s conduct in handing over the memorandum of transfer + CT constituted postponing conduct – because it ‘armed [Petrie] with the means of placing himself or his nominee on the register’Breskvar’s had first in time – but they lose this priority (based on postponing conduct above)oAlbans Pty Ltd was a ‘bona fide purchaser for value without notice’ that bought the land in reliance upon the register and therefore retained priority o Albans Pty Ltd win priority dispute Breskvar’s appeal dismissed Analysis Confirmed Immediate Indefeasibility:oConfirmed the Australian position of immediate indefeasibility of title upon registration – rather than the notion of deferred indefeasibility which had previously been a contentious issue – paved the way for the current position
oIndefeasibility has the effect of creating the title ‘anew’ – it cures the title of any inherent