Bassett v Registrar of Titles

In the matter of Bassett v Registrar of Titles, the applicant sought to have her late daughter's name removed from the register of titles of a property at Ashmore, where the applicant and her daughter had held the property as joint tenants. The applicant also sought orders for an injunction against her daughter's husband, who stood to inherit her interest in the property as tenant in common, and for accounts to be provided and audited regarding certain financial transactions. The second respondent, the Registrar of Titles, applied for summary judgment against the applicant for both the property and accounting claims, while the third respondent, the daughter's husband, applied for the property claim to be dismissed. The applicant cross-applied for summary judgment and disclosure against the second respondent regarding the property claim.

The court had to determine whether the property and accounting claims had reasonable prospects of success or required a trial, and whether to exercise its discretion to order summary judgment for either party or to dismiss the proceedings against the third respondent. In considering the property claim, the court had to assess whether the deceased's signing of a transfer, severing the joint tenancy, was fraudulent and whether the applicant could succeed in an application for orders under either s 187(2) or s 114 of the Land Title Act 1994. Regarding the accounting claim, the court needed to consider whether the deceased's severance of the joint tenancy was an unauthorised conflict transaction under s 73 of the Powers of Attorney Act 1998, and whether the deceased could be said to be exercising a power as attorney in relation to the transactions.

The court found that the applicant's property claim did not have reasonable prospects of success, as it was unlikely that the deceased's signing of the transfer was fraudulent. The applicant could not succeed in an application for orders under either s 187(2) or s 114 of the Land Title Act 1994, as the deceased had not acted fraudulently in signing the transfer. The court also found that the applicant's accounting claim did not have reasonable prospects of success, as it was unlikely that the deceased could be said to be exercising a power as attorney in relation to the transactions. The court exercised its discretion to order summary judgment in favour of the second respondent on the property claim and the application for orders under s 122 of the Powers of Attorney Act 1998. The court also dismissed the applicant's cross-application for summary judgment and disclosure against the second respondent and dismissed the application against the third respondent.

The final orders of the court were that judgment was entered for the second respondent on the applicant's claim against him for a declaration and orders in relation to the interest of Mrs Roslyn de Boer in the house property at Ashmore, the applicant's application was dismissed so far as it sought alteration of the register of titles, judgment was entered for the second respondent on the application for orders under s 122 of the Powers of Attorney Act 1998 that accounts be provided and audited in respect of the L R Bassett Nominees Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Bassett Family Trust Account, and the application against the third respondent was dismissed. The applicant's cross-application for summary judgment and disclosure was also dismissed.