✅ HD APPROVED - LAND LAW (UPDATED FOR 2026) - MLP325

Description

These notes allowed me to net an 80 HD in Land Law-widely considered one of the most difficult subjects at Deakin. Highly detailed and updated for 2026, these 175 pages provide the surgical precision required to master Torrens Title and Indefeasibility. These notes cover: 1 INTERESTS IN LAND - “LAND” - GENERAL LAW LAND V TORRENS TITLE LAND - General law land - Torrens title land - General law (old title) and Torrens title land: What is the difference? - INTERESTS IN LAND - General law interests - “Searching a Chain of Title” - Torrens Title interests - 1) REGISTERED AND UNREGISTERED INTEREST - History - 2) LEGAL AND EQUITABLE INTERESTS - a) LEGAL INTERESTS IN LAND - Formalities for legal interests - A deed: s 52, s 73 PLA - Execution of a deed - b) EQUITABLE INTERESTS IN LAND - Equitable interests in land: Statute of Frauds - Formalities for equitable interest - Types of trusts re s 53 - THE DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE - Equitable interests arising from part performance - Approaches to part performance - Australian position - Types of acts constituting part performance: - Part performance is established by showing: - BOUNDARIES OF LAND OWNERSHIP - Re surface of land - 1) Water rights / boundaries - Natural boundaries - (a) Tidal water (land abuts sea-shore) - (b) Non-tidal water: centre of water/river (ad medium filum aquae rule) (unless abrogated by statute): - Alluvio et avulsio - Accretion and erosion - 2) Fence boundaries - 3) Encroachment / Encroaching buildings upon land - Legislation - a) Encroachment of airspace - GENERAL LAW PRIORITY RULES - 1) Pure legal interests / Legal and legal interests - Nemo dat - Examples of nemo dat - 2) Legal and equitable interests - 2) Prior legal and subsequent equitable interest - Categories of priority of subsequent equitable holder over legal title holder - Northern Counties of England Fire Ins Co v Whipp - Walker v Linom (Court of Chancery) - Other cases - 3) Prior equitable interest and subsequent legal interest - Meaning: ‘Good faith’ & ‘purchaser’ - Meaning: ‘Value’ & ‘notice’ - Pilcher v Rawlins - ‘Bona fide purchaser for value without notice’ rule: Elements - Doctrine of notice - Timing of notice - Exception to the doctrine of notice: Wilkes v Spooner [1911] CB 530 - Obligations on purchaser - 5) Priorities between competing equitable interests - a) Traditional rule / Merit analysis approach: Rice v Rice - Rice v Rice - b) Postponement approach: Heid v Reliance - c) Estoppel: Rimmer v Webster - Which to use? - 6) Prior mere equity and subsequent equitable interest - Latec Investment Ltd v Hotel Terrigal Pty Ltd - Ruthol Pty Ltd v Mills - EFFECT OF REGISTRATION ON PRIORITIES - Deeds registration system 2 PHYSICAL & DIGITAL LAND CONVEYANCING - PHYSICAL LAND CONVEYANCE - Basic stages of a physical land conveyance - Problems with physical conveyancing processes - COMPUTERISED TITLE - DIGITAL CONVEYANCING - Shift to digital processing: Core Concepts - Where are the changes? - REGULATORY FRAMEWORK - Electronic Conveyancing National Law (ECNL) - Electronic Conveyancing (Adoption of National Law) Act 2012 (NSW) (Appendix) - Rules made pursuant to the ECNL - KEY CONCEPTS - 1) Client Authorisation - 2) Verification of identity - 3) Digital signatures - 4) Electronic certificate of title - 5) Dictionary - 6) PEXA - The documentary framework - RISKS & BENEFITS - Risks of electronic conveyancing - Benefits of electronic conveyancing - REFLECTIONS 3 BASIC ELEMENTS OF THE TORRENS SYSTEM - A. GENERAL LAW WITHOUT A REGISTRATION SYSTEM - Problems with A. General law without a registration system - B. DEEDS REGISTRATION SYSTEM - Problems with B. deeds registration system - C. TORRENS SYSTEM - Caveat system - Key points re Torrens system - Registration under the TS - Breskvar v Wall (1971) 126 CLR 376 - THE TORRENS FRAMEWORK - Types of interests under the TLA - CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TORRENS SYSTEM - 1) The register - 2) Registrable interests - Three principles of the TS - 3) Registration - Effect of registration - “No rights prior to registration?” - 4) Indefeasibility of title - Indefeasibility of title: Absolute? - 5) Paramount interests - D. COMPUTERISATION / E-CONVEYANCING 4 INDEFEASIBILITY OF TITLE - RECAP / OVERVIEW - INDEFEASIBILITY - Indefeasibility of title: Absolute? - Registered title - STATUTE: Paramount provisions - Core exceptions or circumstances that can 'penetrate' the indefeasibility are: - STATUTE: Further examination - Section 40: instrument not effectual until registered - Section 41: Certificate to be conclusive evidence of title - Section 42: Estate of registered proprietor paramount - Section 43: Persons dealing with the registered proprietor not affected by notice - Section 44: Certificates etc void for fraud - Conclusion re sections 40-44: - IMMEDIATE AND DEFERRED INDEFEASIBILITY - Immediate indefeasibility - Deferred indefeasibility - Deferred indefeasibility: Gibbs v Messer - Gibbs v Messer (1891 Privy Council) - Comment re Gibbs v Messer - Immediate indefeasibility: Frazer v Walker - Frazer v Walker - Privy Council - Comment re Fraser v Walker - Breskvar v Wall - High Court CB - Comment re above cases - City of Canada Bay Council v Bonaccorso Pty Ltd (NSWCA) - Currently: Indefeasibility - Terms in registered instrument / Scope of Protection - Mercantile Credit v Shell Co of Australia CB - Established after Mercantile: - Extent / Scope of indefeasibility - Scope of protection: Personal interests - CONCLUSION 5 STATUTORY EXCEPTIONS TO INDEFEASIBILITY - 1) FRAUD - What is fraud? - Fraud in provisions of TLA - Meaning in TLA - Equitable vs statutory fraud - CATEGORIES OF FRAUD - Forgery - Fraud by agent - FRAUD CASES - Loke Yew v Port Swettenham Rubber (1913) CB - Bahr v Nicolay (1988) CB - Russo v Bendigo Bank (1993) CB - Comment re Russo v Bendigo Bank: - Bank of South Australia v Ferguson (1998) CB - Gerard Cassegrain v Felicity Cassegrain Pty Ltd [2015] CB (NSW Court of Appeal) and High Court overview - CONCLUSION: Fraud - 2) PRIOR CERTIFICATE OF TITLE - 4) WRONG / ERRONEOUS DESCRIPTION OF LAND - 5) PARAMOUNT INTERESTS - (a) Crown grants: s 42(2)(a) - (b) Adverse possession: s 42(2)(b) - (c) Easements: s 42(2)(d) - Castle Construction Pty Ltd v Sahab Holdings Pty Ltd (HCA) - Easement and the in personam exception in NSW - McGrath v Campbell - Comment re Campbell: - Summary: Easements - (d) Tenancies / Leases: s 42(2)(e) - Downie v Lockwood [1965] VR 257 - Swan v Ueker and Greaves [2016] VSC 313 - Restrictive covenant - Power of registrar to correct register - Section 103 TLA: General provision as to correction of errors etc - Section 44H TLA 6 NON-STATUTORY EXCEPTIONS TO INDEFEASIBILITY - 1) IN PERSONAM DEFENCE - Meaning - Difficulties with in personam - Bahr v Nicolay - Application of Barnes v Addy principles: - Macquarie Bank v 64th Throne - Comment re Macquarie Bank: - LHK Nominees v Kenworthy - In personam: Barnes v Addy claims - Farah Constructions v Say-Lee - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FRAUD AND RIGHTS IN PERSONAM - 2) INCONSISTENT LEGISLATION EXCEPTION - Overriding legislation - Pratten v Warringah Shire Council - Comment re Pratten v Warringah SC: - Horvath v Commonwealth Bank of Australia - Tips in assessing inconsistency (re Horvath) - Calabro v Bayside City Council (V) - Hillpalm v Heavens Door [2004] 220 CLR 472 - Comment re Hillpalm: - Kogarah Municipal Council - City of Canada Bay Council v F & D Bonaccorso Pty Ltd - CONCLUSION: Inconsistent legislation - 3) VOLUNTEERS - Relevant statute - Indefeasibility or not? - valuable consideration? - (2007) 232 CLR 562 (per Gummow and Hayne JJ) - opposed to valuable consideration) gain the protection of the indefeasibility provisions? - King v Smail - Comment: King v Smail: - Kitto J in IAC (Finance) Pty Ltd v Courtenay (1963) 110 CLR 550 at 572: - Bogdanovic v Koteff (NSW) - Rasmussen v Rasmussen - Valoutin v Furst - Conlan v Registar of Titles (WA) - Comment re Conlan: 7 THE ASSURANCE FUND - THE ASSURANCE FUND / STATE GUARANTEE OF TITLE - Background - Objectives of State Guarantee of Title - Relevant Provisions in the TLA - Section 109(2) - Section 110 - Section 110(3) and (4) - Limitation periods - Compensable interest - Restrictions on Compensation Claims beyond the TLA - State Guarantee of Title: Cases - Diemasters v Meadowcorp (2001) NSWSC 495 - Solak v Registrar of Titles [2009] VSC 614 - Instances of compensation - Exclusion of compensation - Exclusion of payment - Other statutes - Process of application - Amount of compensation - PRIVATE INSURANCE OPTIONS 8 UNREGISTERED INTERESTS - Overview - Barry v Heider - Comments re Barry v Heider - TYPES OF UNREGISTERED INTERESTS - (a) Trust interest incapable of registration - Examples of unregistered interests - Protection - CAVEAT SYSTEM - Caveat - Extracts from ss 90 and 91 TLA - Caveat by Registrar - THE NATURE OF A CAVEATABLE INTEREST - Examples of ‘caveatable interests’ are: - Nature of interests - Failure to lodge a caveat - Leros v Terara Pty Ltd - Incidents of indefeasibility: Leros v Terara - Caveat in general: Leros v Terara - Caveat subject to claim - Dealing with an unregistered interest - Black v Garnock - Caveat must relate to existing interests - Consequences of failing to lodge a caveat - Automatic lapsing of caveat - Reasonable grounds for lodgement - PRIORITY RULES - 1) PRIORITIES BETWEEN REGISTERED AND SUBSEQUENT REGISTERED INTERESTS - 2) PRIORITIES BETWEEN REGISTERED AND UNREGISTERED INTERESTS - 3) PRIORITIES BETWEEN UNREGISTERED INTERESTS - Factors in assessing merits - Categories of postponement - Heid v Reliance Corp Pty Ltd (HCA) - Black v Garnock (HCA) - J & H Just (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Bank of NSW (HC) - IAC Finance Pty Ltd v Courtenay (HC) - Jacobs v Platt Nominees (VSC) - Leros Pty Ltd v Terara Pty Ltd - Failure to caveat - Relevance of notice - Moffett v Dillon (VCA) - Comments re Moffett v Dillon - SUMMARY: Priority rules for unregistered interests under the TLA 9 CO-OWNERSHIP - Co-ownership - FORMS OF CO-OWNERSHIP - 1) JOINT TENANCY - Features of joint tenancy - (a) The Four Unities - (b) Right of survivorship - 2) TENANCY IN COMMON - CREATION OF CO-OWNERSHIP - Words of severance - CREATION AT COMMON LAW - Rebuttal of common law presumption - Public Trustee v Pfeiffle - Aoun Investments CB 1117 - CREATION UNDER STATUTE - PRESUMPTION IN EQUITY - Three stablished situations - (a) Unequal contribution to purchase price (Calverley v Green) - Delehunt v Carmody - (a) Mortgagees/Business partners - Malayan Credit - Domestic environment -- Aus position: Trustees v Cummings - Trustees of Property of Cummings v Cummins (2006) High Court - Unequal Contribution / Domestic environment: Stack v Dowden (UK) - Comment re Stack v Dowden: - Post Stack v Dowden: Jones v Kernott [2012] 1 All ER 1265 - RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF CO-OWNERS - Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal - 1) Payment for improvements and repairs - 2) Payment of occupational rent - Occupational rent at common law - (a) Wrongful exclusion - The meaning of 'wrongful exclusion: Common law - Biviano v Natoli - b) and c) Agreement and offset - Occupational rent under Vic statute - How does the improvements ‘set-off’ work? - What are ‘improvements': Common law - What are ‘improvements': Statute - 3) Right to rents and profits - Third party rents received: Claim in equity - PLA s 234 - 4) Right to alienate or encumber a co-owner's own interest in land - Encumbrance - Leases, mortgages and easements - Fraud by one JT will affect the other: Cassegrain (HCA) 10 SEVERANCE & PARTITION - DISPOSITION OF INTERESTS - SEVERANCE OF JOINT TENANCY - Effect of severance - 1) SEVERANCE BY ALIENATION - A) Severance by alienation at law - (a) Sale to a third party - (b) Mutual/cross transfers - Wright v Gibbons (HC) - (c) Alienation to oneself - Peldan v Anderson - Trust relationship - Donation - Operation of an equitable alienation - Corin v Patton - Comment re Corin v Patton - 2) SEVERANCE BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT (IN EQUITY) - Wright v Gibbins (1949) 78 CLR 313 - Peldan v Anderson - Unilateral severance - McCoy v Call - Hulme v Schaecken - Approach - 3) SEVERANCE BY COURSE OF CONDUCT - Right to alienate / Encumber - Mortgage - Guthrie v ANZ Banking Group Ltd (1991) 23 NSWLR 672 - Lyons v Lyons - Comment re Lyons v Lyons - Lease - Lease + Australian cases - 4) SEVERANCE BY OPERATION OF LAW: BANKRUPTCY OR COURT ORDER - Involuntary severances - 5) SEVERANCE BY MERGER - 6) SEVERANCE BY HOMICIDE / UNLAWFUL KILLING - Forfeiture rule in Victoria - 7) SEVERANCE BY PARTITION - Partition under PLA - Statutory trust - TERMINATING A CO-OWNERSHIP