Lam v Lam

The case of Lam v Lam involved a dispute over the ownership of two properties, with the first respondent asserting that the first appellant had transferred the properties to the third respondent without her consent. The first appellant, who had purchased the properties with his own funds, claimed that the transactions were part of a family arrangement, and that he had intended to transfer the properties to his siblings. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue was whether the transfer of the properties was a genuine family arrangement or a fraudulent transfer. Another issue was whether the conveyancer who facilitated the transfers acted in breach of his duty of care to the first appellant.

The court held that the transfers were valid, as the first appellant had the capacity to transfer the properties and had intended to do so as part of a family arrangement. The court found that the evidence did not establish fraud or forgery on the part of the first appellant or the conveyancer. The court also held that the evidence did not support a resulting trust in favour of the first respondent, as the first appellant had an express intention to transfer the properties to his siblings. The court rejected the argument that the conveyancer had acted in breach of his duty of care, as there was no evidence that he had acted without instructions or contrary to the first appellant’s interests.

The court's reasoning was based on the application of the Torrens system, which provides for indefeasibility of title except in cases of fraud. The court found that the onus was on the first respondent to establish fraud or forgery, and that she had not met the statutory standard of proof. The court also found that the first appellant had established an express trust in favour of his siblings, and that the transfers were consistent with that trust. The court held that the conveyancer had not acted in breach of his duty of care, as there was no evidence that he had acted without instructions or contrary to the first appellant’s interests.

The court ordered that the first respondent's claims be dismissed with costs. The court also ordered that the first appellant's claims against the third respondent and the conveyancer be dismissed. The court found that the first appellant had established an express trust in favour of his siblings, and that the transfers were consistent with that trust. The court held that the conveyancer had not acted in breach of his duty of care, as there was no evidence that he had acted without instructions or contrary to the first appellant’s interests.