City Developments Pty Ltd v Registrar-General (NT) - [2001] NTCA 7

City Developments Pty Ltd (ACN 009 638 733) & Anor v The Registrar–General
of the Northern Territory & Ors [2001] NTCA 7
PARTIES:CITY DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
(ACN 009 638 733)
First Appellant

AND:
THE PROPRIETORS UNITS PLAN 97/026
Second Appellant

AND:

THE REGISTRAR–GENERAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
First Respondent

AND:
EDWARD ARTHUR FIELD
  Second Respondent
AND:
TREVOR LINDSAY SULLIVAN
  Third Respondent
AND:
ANDRE AND RINALDO SCARTON
  Fourth Respondents
AND
ROBERT JOHN NASH
Fifth Respondent

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:NO. AP15 of 2000
DELIVERED:  29 August 2001
HEARING DATES:  30 April & 1 May 2001
JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN CJ, ANGEL AND BAILEY JJ
CATCHWORDS:
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellants:J B Waters QC
Respondents:  P Barr
Solicitors:
Appellants:De Silva Hebron
First Respondent:  NT Attorney-General’s Department
Second Respondent:  T S Lee & Associates
Third Respondent:  Priestleys
Fourth Respondents:  Hunt & Hunt
Fifth Respondent:  Vincent Close
Judgment category classification:               C
Judgment ID Number:  Ang200107
Number of pages:  10

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
City Developments Pty Ltd (ACN 009 638 733) & Anor v The Registrar–General
of the Northern Territory & Ors [2001] NTCA 7
No. AP15 of 2000
BETWEEN:

CITY DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD

(ACN 009 638 733)
First Appellant

AND:

THE PROPRIETORS UNITS PLAN 97/26
Second Appellant
AND:

THE REGISTRAR–GENERAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
First Respondent
AND:

EDWARD ARTHUR FIELD
Second Respondent
AND:

TREVOR LINDSAY SULLIVAN
Third Respondent

AND:

ANDRE AND RINALDO SCARTON
Fourth Respondents

AND:

ROBERT JOHN NASH
Fifth Respondent

CORAM: MARTIN CJ, ANGEL & BAILEY JJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 29 August 2001)
MARTIN CJ:

I have had the benefit of the draft judgment of Justice Angel in this matter and agree that the appeal be dismissed for the reasons given by his Honour.

ANGEL J:

This appeal from a decision of Thomas J, (2000) 135 NTR 1, concerns the legal efficacy of certain registered easements at Lake Bennett Resort. The appellants are the owners of the servient tenements and the respondents are the owners of the dominant tenements.

On 2 June 2000 Thomas J held that the easements are good in law. The appellants challenge that conclusion in this appeal.
The dispute concerns the Lake Bennett Resort. The lake and foreshore strip surrounding it were once part of Section 69 Hundred of Howard. That section was sub–divided into three separate areas comprising, inter alia, Sections 92, 93 and 118. On 10 June 1983 Section 118 was sub–divided into Sections 152 to 155 inclusive. Section 152 comprised the area of the lake and the surrounding foreshore land.
On 18 December 1996 a grant of easement was registered over Section 152 in favour of Section 92. Section 92, comprising the land described in Certificate of Title Register Book Volume 432 Folio 158, is registered in the name of the respondents Scarton. On 22 April 1993 a grant of easement was registered over Section 152 in favour of Section 93 which was also…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read City Developments Pty Ltd v Registrar-General (NT) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] NTCA 7
Decision Date: 29 August 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

City Developments Pty Ltd, along with another party, brought an action against the Registrar-General, contesting the validity of certain land titles recorded in the Northern Territory. The dispute centred on whether the titles in question were correctly registered and if there were any procedural flaws that could invalidate them. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory.

The primary legal issue before the court was the accuracy and legality of the land titles, specifically whether the Registrar-General had the authority to issue these titles and whether the procedures followed were compliant with relevant legislative provisions. Additionally, the court had to consider whether any defects in the process rendered the titles invalid.

The court examined the relevant legislation governing land titles and registration in the Northern Territory, along with the procedural requirements that must be satisfied for titles to be valid. It was determined that the Registrar-General had the authority to issue the titles as long as all statutory requirements were met. The court found that the procedures followed were in accordance with the law, and thus the titles were valid. Consequently, the application by City Developments Pty Ltd and the other party was dismissed.

The final orders of the court confirmed the validity of the land titles in question and upheld the authority of the Registrar-General in issuing them. The court held that no procedural defects were present that could invalidate the titles, and therefore, the application was dismissed with no orders for costs.

Orders