The person who purchased Roger Mildenhall's house had no idea that anything was wrong, they thought they were simply buying the house from the true owner. This means it was a situation where there were two innocent parties: Roger Mildenhall and the innocent purchaser. While neither did anything wrong, only one of them can get to keep the house (note that the other may have a claim for compensation). 

Q1: Under the principle of immediate indefeasibility, who would get to keep the house: Roger or the innocent purchaser?

Q3:Under the principle of deferred indefeasibility, who would get to keep the house: Roger or the innocent purchaser?

 

Q4: Who do you think should own the house, Roger or the innocent purchaser? And why?

Q5: Which is the law in New South Wales and the other Australian states: immediate indefeasibility or deferred indefeasibility? 

Q6: By the time Roger discovered the fraudulent scheme, the house in Karrinyup had already been registered in the name of the innocent purchaser. What would have been the outcome if Roger had discovered the scheme after the innocent purchaser had signed the sale contract and paid the deposit but before the sale had been completed and the transfer registered?