Leslie Peter Sole v Benjamin Nuele Akari

Leslie Peter Sole brought an action against Benjamin Nuele Akari concerning an unregistered mortgage over a property in which Akari claimed to have an interest. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the unregistered mortgage, which was taken after all advances had been made, could be considered to have a sufficient interest in the property. Additionally, the court had to determine if the forbearance to sue could constitute sufficient consideration for the grant of the mortgage.

The court examined the principles of the Torrens system and the requirements for a valid mortgage. It was established that for a mortgage to be effective, it must be registered under the relevant legislation. However, the court considered whether an unregistered mortgage could still have some effect if the mortgagee had a sufficient interest in the property. The court also evaluated whether the principle of forbearance to sue could be sufficient consideration for the grant of a mortgage. The court concluded that while an unregistered mortgage could have some effect, it did not provide a sufficient interest in the property to be enforceable. Additionally, the court held that forbearance to sue did not constitute sufficient consideration for the grant of a mortgage.

In light of the court's findings, it was determined that the unregistered mortgage did not confer a sufficient interest in the property, and the forbearance to sue did not provide adequate consideration. The court ruled in favour of Leslie Peter Sole and against Benjamin Nuele Akari. Consequently, the court ordered that the unregistered mortgage held by Akari over the property was null and void, and Akari had no enforceable interest in the property.