8/12/2019 Case Notes civil litigation

1/2

CASE NOTESBreskvar 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 inMayer 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 withSchulz 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

registrationo ' affirmsoke e! v "or S!ee*ha+ ,191-

o +n"onsisten"y 3isting%ished fromeros v /erara (199&) P ne&er agreed.

o Corre"t affirmedS*o!lo*0 "y v Choe (1991)

Personal Equities: P4 arises where reg !erson agrees to 5nd!erson to be s%b*e"t to %nreg 6rd!erson.

o ' 4"e!tion first re"ogni7edBarry v 2eier (1913),b%t added another eam!le sit%ation

here.o Corre"t affirmedS*o!lo*0 "y v Choe (1991)

Barry v 2eier (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: or5. 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%"iaryobligations.

8/12/2019 Case Notes civil litigation

2/2

Extent that this as ne la:

Whilst P4 re"ogni7ed inBahr v NicolayandBarry v Heiderthis ty!e1eam!le based the

%na%thori7ed %se of CT is '4W.Extent of inconsistency ith pre! cases:

;rg%ably in"onsistent withMayer 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)thatMML v Go!erin"orre"t. B,T C$; a&oided

de"iding "orre"tness et"/ by disting%ishing it on the fa"ts. < & ;'A had no !re=eisting 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.

2ei v 4elia*ce Fi*a*ce (19'-)H sold Connell +n&estments for 9D>. 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">aysem!loyee