Question
Torrens II Vance and Nicole are the registered proprietors of an estate in fee simple in Oyster Bay under the Real Property Act. After living
Torrens II Vance and Nicole are the registered proprietors of an estate in fee simple in Oyster Bay under the Real Property Act. After living at the property for many happy years, Vance and Nicole want to retire to the North Coast to be closer to their grandchildren. After some discussion, they decide to sell the property. Vance engages a local real estate agent to advertise the sale. Logan is an interested buyer. Logan comes to you to review the Contract for Sale and assist in the conveyance. Contracts are promptly exchanged, and a settlement period of six weeks is set. On the day of settlement, as is standard procedure, a title activity check is conducted in the morning, and then again 55 minutes prior to settlement. As all the documents look to be in order, including a stamped and executed transfer, you sign off on settlement. Unbeknownst to you, 35 minutes prior to settlement, Vance and Nicole's neighbour, Zeke, lodges a caveat over the property. On the morning of settlement, Zeke hears from his old neighbours, (the biggest gossips in the Shire), that Vance and Nicole have sold the house. Zeke becomes concerned as he claims he is entitled under a written agreement with Vance and Nicole to use a 2.5 metre wide strip of land on Vance and Nicole's property as an alternate access path to a nearby road. The easement agreement was never lodged for registration, as Vance and Zeke have been long time friends and neighbours for many years. Logan has no idea about this arrangement. You explain to Logan that while the caveat does not prevent settlement and lodgement of the transfer, it does prevent Logan from registering his interest. Logan is confused and annoyed about this issue and seeks the following advice: Is Logan subject to the easement? *Hint: you do not need to consider the characteristics of an easement in order to answer this question. We will look at easements in detail in module (7). Start by looking at slide 56... Please answer by four steps 1 Key legal Issues 2 Principles and Authorities 3 Application 4 Conclusion, Remedies and Advice
Reference Statute Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), ss 23B-23E, 54A Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), ss 36, 41, 43, 43A, 53, 74F-74R, 74S-74Z Cases Creation of Unregistered Interests Barry v Heider (1914) 19 CLR 197. Chan v Cresdon (1989) 168 CLR 242. Manton v Parabolic Pty Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 361. Maddison v Alderson (1883) 8 App Cas 467. *Cooney v Burns (1922) 30 CLR 216. Theodore v Mistford (2005) 221 CLR 612. Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) 21 Ch D 9. Latec Investments v Hotel Terrigal Pty Ltd (1965) 113 CLR 265. Issues of Priority Northern Counties of England Fire Insurance Co v Whipp (1884) 26 Ch D 482. Walker v Linom [1907] 2 Ch 104. Pilcher v Rawlins (1872) 7 Ch App 259. *Breskvar v Wall (1971) 126 CLR 376. Westpac Banking Corporation v Ollis [2008] NSWSC 824. Double Bay Newspapers Pty Ltd v AW Holdings Pty Ltd (1996) 42 NSWLR 409. *Hunt v Luck [1902] 1 Ch 428. [1902] 1 Ch. 428.pdf Download [1902] 1 Ch. 428.pdf Smith v Jones (1954) 1 WLR 1089. Caveats and Priority Notices Butler v Fairclough (1917) 23 CLR 78. *Abigail v Lapin [1934] AC 491. *Heid v Reliance Finance Corporation Pty Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 326. Courtenay v Austin [1962] NSWLR 296. IAC (Finance) Pty Ltd v Courtenay (1963) 110 CLR 550. Jacobs v Platt Nominees Pty Ltd [1990] VR 146. J & H Just (Holdings) v Bank of New South Wales (1971) 125 CLR 546. Black v Garnock (2007) 230 LR 438. Leros v Terrara (1992) 174 CLR 407. Section 43A IAC (Finance) Pty Ltd v Courtenay (1963) 110 CLR 550. Diemasters v Meadowcorp (2001) 52 NSWLR 572. Westpac Banking Corporation v Ollis [2008] NSWSC 824. Drulroad v Gibson (1992) NSW ConvR 55-637. Wilkes v Spooner [1911] 2 KB 473. Mayer v Coe (1968) 88 WN(NSW) (Pt 1) 549. Finlay v R & I Bank of WA (1993) NSW ConvR 55-686. Jonray (Sydney) Pty Ltd v Partridge Bros Pty Ltd (1969) 89 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 568. *Weller v Williams [2010] NSWSC 716. Zisti v Ryde Joinery Pty Ltd (1996) 7 BPR 15,217. *Taleb v National Australia Bank Ltd (2011) 82 NSWR 489; [2011] NSWSC 1562. *Barlin Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation [2012] NSWSC 699.
Step by Step Solution
There are 3 Steps involved in it
Step: 1
Get Instant Access to Expert-Tailored Solutions
See step-by-step solutions with expert insights and AI powered tools for academic success
Step: 2
Step: 3
Ace Your Homework with AI
Get the answers you need in no time with our AI-driven, step-by-step assistance
Get Started