Cassegrain v Gerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Felicity Cassegrain (the appellant) against Gerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd (the respondent). The dispute concerned the indefeasibility of the appellant's title to a farming property, known as the "Dairy Farm," which she held as a joint tenant with her husband, Claude Cassegrain. The respondent, the former registered proprietor, sought to recover title to the Dairy Farm, alleging that the appellant's title was defeasible due to Claude's fraudulent conduct in acquiring the property from the respondent company.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the appellant's title as a registered proprietor was indefeasible under the *Real Property Act 1900* (NSW), despite Claude's fraud. Specifically, the court had to determine if Claude's fraud could be attributed to the appellant, either because he acted as her agent or because their registration as joint tenants rendered her title defeasible. The court also considered whether the appellant's subsequent acquisition of Claude's interest in the property, for nominal consideration, affected the indefeasibility of her title.

The High Court reasoned that while Claude's actions in procuring the transfer of the Dairy Farm from the respondent company were fraudulent, this fraud was not "brought home" to the appellant. The court clarified that the indefeasibility provisions of the *Real Property Act* protect a registered proprietor unless the fraud is that of the proprietor whose title is impeached or their agent. Claude was not found to be the appellant's agent in the relevant sense, and the fraud of one joint tenant does not automatically defeat the title of the other joint tenant. However, the court found that the appellant was not a bona fide purchaser for value of Claude's half interest in the property, meaning that this interest could be recovered by the respondent.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal in part. It set aside the orders of the Court of Appeal and declared that the appellant held a half interest in the Dairy Farm on trust for the respondent absolutely. The appellant was ordered to execute a transfer of this half interest to the respondent. Despite the limited success of her appeal, the appellant was awarded her costs of the appeal to the High Court.