CORPORATIONS — Contracts — Formalities — Statutory assumptions — Whether documents were properly executed to bind the defendant company — Where the plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to rely upon the assumptions in s 129 of the Corporations Act with respect to the purported proper execution of documents by two directors of the defendant — Where the apparent signatures of the two directors had been forged and every apparent communication between the plaintiffs, their agent and the defendant had been fraudulently undertaken by a person who had no authority to act in any way on behalf of the defendant — Whether the plaintiffs had dealings with the defendant for the purpose of s 128 of the Act — Where the Court found that the plaintiffs were not entitled to rely on the assumptions in s 129 because the plaintiffs had no dealings with the defendant — Where the Court held that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the defendant is precluded from denying that it is bound by the documents
EQUITY — Equitable interests in property — Priority disputes — Earlier legal interest — Where the plaintiffs claimed that they had an equitable interest in property in circumstances where their registered mortgage did not on its proper construction and in the events which had happened secure the advance made by the plaintiffs — Where the plaintiffs’ interest in the defendant’s property was created by the fraud of a third party — Where the plaintiffs argued that the defendant’s conduct disentitled it from asserting its priority as the registered proprietor of the property over the plaintiffs’ equitable interest — Whether the earlier legal interest of the defendant would lose its priority to the later equitable interest of the plaintiffs — Where the Court found that the plaintiffs have not established that the defendant lost its entitlement to priority as the registered proprietor LAND LAW — Torrens title — Compensation for loss of interest in land — Torrens assurance fund — Where the plaintiffs claimed that, in the event the Court found that the registered mortgage was not effective to secure the amount advanced and that their later equitable interest did not have priority over the defendant’s legal interest, they are entitled to be paid compensation from the Torrens assurance fund on the basis of s 129(1)(e) of the Real Property Act — Whether the loss or damage that the plaintiffs would suffer would be as a result of the operation of the Act — Where the Registrar-General submitted that the plaintiffs are not entitled to compensation because the loss or damage would arise from the plaintiffs conduct rather than as a result of the operation of the Act — Where the plaintiffs argued that the Court should conclude that the plaintiffs will suffer loss as a result of fraud in that they will be deprived of an estate or interest in the property as a consequence of fraud — Where the Court found that the loss or damage that the plaintiffs will suffer is not as a result of the Act — Where the Court held that the plaintiffs’ claim for compensation from the Torrens assurance fund must be dismissed
LAND LAW — Torrens title — Exceptions to indefeasibility — Fraud — Where the plaintiffs claimed that they had a registered mortgage over the defendant’s property — Where the registered mortgage was procured by the fraud of a third party — Whether the plaintiffs’ registered mortgage was indefeasible — Where the Court found that the mortgage in effect did not secure any money — Where the Court held that the plaintiffs’ registered mortgage was indefeasible but that because it secured nothing, the defendant

Wassell v Ken Carr Bobcat and Tipper Hire Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 1415 (03 November 2021)