Hewitt v Topero Nominees Pty Ltd

In the matter of *Hewitt v Topero Nominees Pty Ltd*, the applicant, Ms. Hewitt, sought to have a caveat lodged by the respondent, Topero Nominees Pty Ltd, removed from the title of a property. The dispute concerned the validity of a mortgage purportedly granted by Ms. Hewitt to Topero Nominees, which formed the basis of the caveat. The matter came before Judge Burchardt in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the mortgage document presented by Topero Nominees was a valid and registrable instrument. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the mortgage had been executed in accordance with the requirements of the *Land Title Act 1994* (Qld), particularly concerning the proper attestation and witnessing of the document by Ms. Hewitt. The Court also considered whether Topero Nominees had established a sufficient caveatable interest in the property to justify the continued presence of the caveat.

Judge Burchardt found that the mortgage document was not properly executed by Ms. Hewitt as required by the *Land Title Act 1994*. The evidence indicated that the witnessing requirements, which necessitate the witness to be present when the mortgagor signs and to sign in the mortgagor's presence, had not been met. Consequently, the mortgage was deemed invalid and incapable of registration. As Topero Nominees' caveatable interest was predicated on this invalid mortgage, the Court concluded that no caveatable interest existed.

The Court ordered that the caveat lodged by Topero Nominees Pty Ltd be removed from the title of the property.