IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
TASMANIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
TG 11 of 1998
BETWEEN:
GILLIAN MARGARET MARY MAGUIRE
APPLICANTAND:
RECORDER OF TITLES
FIRST RESPONDENTCOMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
HEEREY J
DATE:
25 AUGUST 1998
PLACE:
HOBART
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This application is based on a misconception. The applicant is the registered proprietor of the land initially described in Certificate of Title volume 4267, folio 27. On 3 March 1994 she executed a memorandum of mortgage in favour of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. Subsequently the title to the same land was issued, volume 5429, folio 11. As one would expect the mortgage is registered on the new title, but the land remains the same. The liabilities of the applicant remain the same. There is no point in this application. The application will be dismissed.
I certify that this page is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Heerey
Associate:
Dated: 25 August 1998
Counsel for the Applicant: Self Counsel for the first Respondent: Mr C Owen Solicitor for the first Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (Tasmania) Counsel for the second Respondent: Mr C Cunningham Solicitors for the second Respondent: Simmons Wolfhagen Date of Hearing: 25 August 1998 Date of Judgment: 25 August 1998
- AGLC
- Maguire, Gillian Margaret Mary v Recorder of Titles [1998] FCA 1068
- Case
- [1998] FCA 1068
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had grounds to challenge the registration of the mortgage on the new title, given that the land and the mortgage liabilities remained unchanged. The applicant argued that the registration on the new title was erroneous and sought to have it rectified. The court needed to determine whether the application was based on a valid legal premise and if there were any grounds for the relief sought by the applicant.
Justice Heerey dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's argument was based on a misconception. The court held that the registration of the mortgage on the new title was valid and that the liabilities of the applicant remained unchanged. As there was no point in the application, it was dismissed. The reasoning was straightforward, focusing on the unchanged nature of the land and the mortgage liabilities despite the change in the title volume and folio.
The court made no further orders, dismissing the application outright based on the findings that the registration was proper and that the applicant's concerns were unfounded.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.