Maclean v Registrar-General

The case of Maclean v Registrar-General involves the plaintiff, who purchased a property in 1988, seeking compensation from the Torrens Assurance Fund for costs incurred due to an urban resumption order that was in effect from 1972. At the time of purchase, there was no notation on the title indicating the resumption, and the plaintiff only became aware of the resumption when they began developing the property. The plaintiff sought compensation for both the wasted costs incurred due to the resumption and additional costs related to the development.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff was entitled to compensation under the statutory provisions governing the Torrens Assurance Fund and if the lack of a notation on the title at the time of purchase absolved the Registrar-General of liability. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the absence of a notation indicating the resumption order constituted a sufficient defence against the plaintiff's claim.

The court found that the absence of a notation on the title did not absolve the Registrar-General of liability for the plaintiff's losses. The court held that the statutory provisions did not require a notation on the title to trigger compensation, and the Registrar-General was liable for the plaintiff's wasted and additional costs. The court emphasised that the purpose of the Assurance Fund was to compensate landowners for losses incurred due to resumption orders, regardless of whether such orders were noted on the title at the time of purchase.

The court awarded the plaintiff compensation for the wasted costs and additional costs incurred due to the resumption order. The decision underscored the importance of the Torrens Assurance Fund in protecting property owners from unforeseen resumption orders and affirmed the broad scope of compensation available under the relevant statutory provisions.