C & M Duran Pty Ltd v Zhong Bao Liu

The dispute between C & M Duran Pty Ltd and Zhong Bao Liu involved a contract for the sale and purchase of land and business, with a second mortgage secured on the real property. The first and second defendants were registered proprietors of the security property, and the plaintiff claimed for possession of the property following a default under the mortgage by the purchaser. The plaintiff alleged that the first defendant forged the second defendant's signature on the mortgage documents, and that the third defendant made false attestations on the documents. The plaintiff also claimed that the first defendant made false representations and breached a duty of care. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff was complicit in the forgery, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to succeed in its claim against the second defendant regarding the forged mortgage documents.

The court had to decide several legal issues, including whether the registration of the mortgage was procured by fraud, and whether the indefeasibility of title was defeated. The court also had to consider the cross-claim by the first defendant against the plaintiff, which alleged that the plaintiff had breached its fiduciary duty and was liable for damages. The court had to assess the competing versions of facts presented by both parties and determine which party had discharged the onus of proof.

The court held that the registration of the mortgage was procured by fraud, as the first defendant forged the second defendant's signature on the mortgage documents. The court also found that the director of the plaintiff was aware of the forgery, which meant that the indefeasibility of title was defeated. The court rejected the plaintiff's claim against the second defendant, as the registration of the mortgage was procured by fraud. The court also found that the onus of proof had not been discharged in respect of the cross-claim by the first defendant against the plaintiff.

The court ordered that the second defendant be removed from the register of titles as the registered proprietor of the security property, and that the plaintiff be granted possession of the property. The court also dismissed the cross-claim by the first defendant against the plaintiff. The court did not make any orders in respect of damages or costs.