Forster and Forster (No. 2)

In *Forster & Forster (No. 2)*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife for an order directing the Registrar-General of the Land Titles Office to issue a new Certificate of Title for a property, notwithstanding the duplicate Certificate of Title had not been produced. The husband, appearing in person, had raised numerous objections and sought various orders, including that the contract of sale be deemed void and that proceedings be stayed. The court was asked to give effect to prior orders made for the sale of the property.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it had the power to direct the Registrar-General to issue a new Certificate of Title under section 64 of the *Real Property Act 1886* (SA), and if so, whether it should exercise that power. The court also considered the husband's various applications, including requests to void the sale contract, stay proceedings, and obtain details of the purchaser, in light of existing orders for the property's sale.

Justice Cronin found that the *Real Property Act 1886* (SA) defines "court" to include any Commonwealth court, and section 64 empowers such a court to direct the Registrar-General to issue a new certificate of title even if the duplicate has not been produced, to give effect to a judgment, decree, or order. The court noted that prior orders had been made for the sale of the property, and the current application was to facilitate the completion of that sale. The husband's objections and alternative applications were largely dismissed, as they either sought to override existing orders that the court had no power to vary, were not supported by evidence, or were premature. The court also noted the husband's ongoing complaints about the conduct of proceedings and ordered that these be brought to the attention of the Deputy Chief Justice for investigation.

The court ordered that the Registrar-General be directed to issue a new Certificate of Title to the purchasers of the property. The wife's costs of the application were reserved to the trial judge, as were the husband's costs. The husband's application and his oral response were otherwise dismissed. The court also noted that publication of the judgment under a pseudonym had been approved.