Forgery alone is not enough
•    Storey v Advance Bank (1993)]
o    FACTS
    -    Husband and Wife formed company
    -    Company was registered proprietor of torrens land
    -    Husband, without knowledge of wife, gave bank a mortgage on property by forging wife’s signature
    -    Bank registered mortgage
    -    Company tried to have mortgage put aside on basis of personal equity
o    HELD
    -    Bank was able to rely on the mortgage, as they should not have been expected to see through the forgery and the husband’s rouse
    -    If all you can show is forgery, cannot establish cause of action against innocent mortgagee
•    Bank gets indefeasible title

Personal equities and rights
•    Grgic v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1994)
o    REALLY NOT SURE ABOUT THIS CASE< DON’T USE IT
o    Powell JA
o    FACTS
    -    ANZ officer attested to signature of person impersonating the registered proprietor
    -    Mortgage payments not met
o    HELD - G lost – bank did not know him personally, and so did not act improperly

Registrar-General’s Power of Correction

Registrar general is authorised to ‘correct errors and omissions in the Register
•    Section 12(1)(d)
o    In practice, exercised only to correct obvious clerical and administrative errors
    -    Accords with settled view that it is not for the Registrar-General to settle conflicting claims to land

RG can call in certificate of title to make amendments
•    Section 136(1) (b) Real Property Act

•    James v Registrar-General (1967) 69 SR (NSW) 361
o    FACTS
    -    Easement properly created and proper forms lodged and registered, and appeared on certificate of title
    -    When page was full, a new page started, and easement accidentally left off
    -    RG realized mistake, and requested certificate of title to amend mistake
    -    James refused
    -    When James went to mortgage land some time later, Registrar general amended the certificate of title
    -    Question whether RG had power to do this
o    HELD - RG simply doing what law required
•    Has power to correct as long as can prove it was an omission

Used to be that power to correct under s12(1)(d) is lost once a bona fide purchaser or mortgagee has acquired an interest on the faith of the uncorrected register, and becomes registered
•    Frazer v Walker
•    James v Registrar General
•    BUT: This was overturned by section 12(3) in 1970
o    RG can make corrections to the register at any time, although correction is not to prejudice rights of a person who has registered a right before the change is made
    -    Odd: how can a subsequent correction not affect the present owner?
    -    Even if not enforced until next owner, affects price of sale

Error must be one of the registrar general, not the parties
•    Scallion v RG (1988)

Overriding Statutes

•    Like any legislation, the Real Property act is subject to later legislation
o    Principle that later statute impliedly overrules older statute to the extent that they conflict

•    Later statutes can create interests that bind the land, even if they are not registered, because:
o    It is not an interest that can be registered
    -    Miller v Minister of Mines (1963)
o    It is not a proprietary interest
    -    Linden v Wagg (1968)
•    Rent control legislation, when protected tenant died, close family could stay in possession of premises
o    No procedure in the Real Property Act by which it may be registered or recorded
•    Thus, the Register is not an exhaustive list of interests in land

Legislation later than Real Property Act 1900 overrules it
•    Pratten v Warringah Shire Council (1969) 90 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 134
o    FACTS
    -    Block of land crossed by underground drainage pipes which were owned by the council
    -    Council becomes owner of land, but drainage pipes not registered
    -    Pratten wants to buy land from council, so searches register
    -    Also writes twice to the council to check whether they own the pipes
•    Council says they do not own pipes
    -    Further, lawyers write to Registrar general and ask him to do an official search of the register which confirms that no interests in the drainage pipes are registered
    -    Pratten finally buys land
    -    Council later realises that it does own the pipes
•    Under 1919 statute
o    HELD
    -    Legislation which gives ownership to council is 1919 statute, which therefore overrules the Real Property Act
    -    Estoppel raised, but could not be applied because statutory authorities who have obligations over land cannot be estopped from performing those duties

Estoppel and possessory title may be relevant defence to later statutory
•    Quach v Marrickville Municipal Council (1991)
o    FACTS
    -    Drainage reserve not shown on register
    -    Quach makes search, finds nothing, buys land and registers
    -    Years later, council sought to assert ownership over reserve
•    Given under 1919 statute
o    HELD - Later statute overrides RPA (as in Pratten)
    -    BUT:
•    Estoppel available as Mr Quach had paid rates for years for whole land
•    Possessory title
o    Had possession for 12 years and so acquired the title
o    Council’s title extinguished
o    Although possibly lucky on this point, as under s45D of Real Property Act, cant acquire title to strips of land, only to the whole block

Volunteers
•    Volunteer:
o    Someone who has not paid valuable consideration for an interest
•    Question whether volunteers, once registered, get same indefeasibility as those that give consideration
o    Not specifically referred to as exception in legislation
o    But, they are not a bona fide purchaser for value, as have provided no value
•    Law may be different for NSW and Victoria
•    Maybe no different: Section 42 does not discriminate
•    May be less indefeasible:
o    Not a purchaser as referred to in section 43

In NSW, volunteer gets exactly the same title and indefeasibility as those who pay value
•    Section 42 does not say that you need to pay value to get indefeasibility, and so is indiscriminate as to whether you gave consideration or not
•    Bogdanovic v Koteff (1988)
o    FACTS
    -    Koteff senior invites Bogdanovics to live
•    Gives Mrs B a life estate
o    Equitable interest under constructive trust
    -    When he dies, house given to son, who knew nothing of equitable or contractual interest to B – wants her out
    -    He became registered proprietor without knowledge of equitable or contractual rights
o    HELD
    -    Indefeasibility provisions apply same to registered proprietor of land who takes interest in land as volunteer
•    Allows rp to take title free from prior equitable interests which she had no notice of
    -    The oral promise to her would be sufficient, however in this case, Koteff’s son became registered proprietor without prior knowledge of contractual or equitable right, and obtained indefeasible title
    -    King v Smail (Victorian Case) should no longer be followed, as Breskvar v Wall, following Frazer v Walker, established that the title of each registered proprietor arises from registration

In Victoria, Registered proprietor of torrens title land who took without value could have no better title than their predecessor
•    IE they are bound by the equitable interests that stood under the old ownership
•    Rasmussen v Rasmussen [1995]
o    Victorian decision

•    King v Smail (Victorian)

o    Similar proposition to Rasmussen
o    NOTE: In NSW, in Bogdanovic v Koteff, court said that King v Smail (Victorian Case) should no longer be followed, as Breskvar v Wall, following Frazer v Walker, established that the title of each registered proprietor arises from registration