Hutson v Roufeil

The plaintiffs, appointed receivers and managers of a lender, sought to establish their entitlement to possession of land over which the lender held legal title. The second defendant claimed a life estate in the property, alleging that an estoppel by convention applied, and that an in personam exception to indefeasibility was appropriate. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The court was required to determine whether there was evidence to support the second defendant's claims of an estoppel by convention and whether this could serve as an exception to the indefeasibility of the plaintiffs' title.

The court found that there was no evidence of the requisite assumptions being adopted by all parties, as required for an estoppel by convention to apply. The second defendant's evidence did not demonstrate that the plaintiffs and the lender had adopted assumptions which would give rise to an estoppel. The court also found that there was no basis for the second defendant's claim of a life estate, as there was no evidence to support this assertion. The court concluded that there was no in personam exception to indefeasibility available to the second defendant. The plaintiffs, as receivers and managers of the lender, were therefore entitled to possession of the property.

The court ordered that possession of the property be granted to the plaintiffs, as receivers and managers of the lender. The court further ordered that the second defendant's claims be dismissed. The decision reinforced the principle that indefeasibility of title is a fundamental aspect of the Torrens system in Australia, and that exceptions to this principle must be carefully substantiated by evidence.