You are on page 1of 2

12/22/2016

BreskvarvWallUniStudyGuides

BreskvarvWall
FromUniStudyGuides
Citation:BreskvarvWall(1971)126CLR376.
ThisinformationcanbefoundintheTextbook:Edgeworthetall,SackvilleandNeave'sPropertyLawCases
andMaterials,8thedition,LexisNexis,2008,pp.4819[5.45].

Contents
1BackgroundFacts
2Argument
3Legalissues
4Judgment
5References

BackgroundFacts
TheAppellants[Breskvar]ownedaproperty.Theywantedaloanandhadtoexecuteatransferof
thepropertyforsecuritypurposes,withtheSecondRespondent(Petrie).
Thetransferwasnotproperlyexecutedthenameofthetransfereewasblankduringthetimeit
wassigned,whichcontravenedsomelegislation.Atalaterdate,theSecondRespondentfilledthe
nameinthetransferashisgrandson,theFirstRespondent[Wall].
TheFirstRespondentusedthetransferdocumenttoregisterhimself,andthentriedtotransferitto
theThirdRespondent[Alban],whowasaninnocent,bonafidepurchaserforgoodconsideration.
BeforetheThirdRespondentcouldcompleteregistration,theAppellantslodgedacaveatandthus
theregistrationcouldnotgothrough.

Argument
TheAppellantsarguedthattheFirstandSecondrespondentswerefraudulentpurchasersbecause
oftheinvalidtransferdeed.Thatmeansthattheirregistrationwasinvalid,andthustheyhadno
titletopasstotheThirdRespondent.
TheThirdRespondentarguedthathewasabonafidepurchaserforandthushasimmediate
indefeasibility.

Legalissues
ThePrincipleofIndefeasibilityImmediateandDeferredIndefeasibility
Doesafraudulentpurchaserstillacquiretitleorisregistrationcompletelyinvalid?

Judgment
BarwickCJ:
Yes,therewasfraudonthepartoftheFirstandSecondRespondents.However,thatdidnotmean
thattheFirstRespondentnotacquiretitlebyvirtueoftheregistration.
http://www.unistudyguides.com/wiki/Breskvar_v_Wall

1/2

12/22/2016

BreskvarvWallUniStudyGuides

Theregistrationsystemdoesnot'registertitles'itprovides'titlesaccordingto
registration'.
Thedistinctionisthatregistrationdoesnot'validate'thetitlewhichtheproprietor
alreadyhadtheactofregistrationiswhatgivestheregisteredpersonthetitle.
Therefore,evenifthesituationwhichledtotheregistrationwassomehowwrong(ie,the
instrumentwasvoidortherewasfraud),theregistrationofthetitlestillveststitletotheregistered
person.
Thedifferenceisthatthetitleissubjecttotherightsonthedefraudedvendor(ie,thetitleis
defeasible,asopposedtoindefeasiblewhenthereisnofraud).
Beforethenexttransaction(betweentheFirstRespondenttotheThirdRespondent),the
AppellantscouldhaveeasilycontestedtheFirstRespondenttitleandprobablycanceledthe
registration.
Thisisbecausetheyhadanequitableinterestintheland(becauseofthefraud),which
isnotbarredbythelegislation(again,becauseofthefraud,whichisanexceptionin
thelegislation).
However,afterthesecondtransaction,thereisnowanotherequitableinterestonthepartofthe
ThirdRespondent,whoisabonafidepurchaser.Thismeansthereisacompetitionbetweentheir
equitableinterest(ie,aquestionofpriorities).
SincetheAppellantshadtheearlierequitableinterest,thelawsofprioritymeanthattheywould
prevailovertheThirdRespondentunlesstheirconducthelpedencouragetheThirdRespondent's
falseassumption(thatthetitlevestedwiththeFirstRespondent).
However,theAppellantsexecutedablanktransferdocumentandhandedoverduplicatecertificates
oftitle.ThatconductindeedhelpedencouragetheThirdRespondent'sfalseassumption,and
thereforetheylosetheprioritywhichtheypreviouslyenjoyed.
TheAppellantslose.

References
Retrievedfrom"http://www.unistudyguides.com/index.php?title=Breskvar_v_Wall&oldid=14142"
Category: Property,equityandtrusts2
Thispagewaslastmodifiedon4November2012,at20:25.
Thispagehasbeenaccessed20,826times.

http://www.unistudyguides.com/wiki/Breskvar_v_Wall

2/2

You might also like