Mangano v Bullen

Mangano v Bullen involved a dispute over the validity of a transfer of real property and its subsequent conversion into a joint tenancy. The plaintiff, Mangano, was the daughter of the deceased and the executrix of his estate, while the defendant, Bullen, was the registered proprietor of the property. Mangano sought a declaration that the transfer and the subsequent creation of the joint tenancy were void as a fraud upon the National Companies and Securities Commission, the body in whom the property was vested at the time of the transfer. The central issues before the court were whether Bullen was knowingly involved in any fraud associated with the transfer and whether the transfer and the creation of the joint tenancy were defeasible.

The court examined the circumstances surrounding the transfer and whether Bullen was aware of the fraudulent nature of the transaction. The Real Property Act 1900, s 42 provided the legal framework for determining whether the transfer could be considered voidable due to fraud. The court found that Bullen had witnessed the affixation of a company seal to the memorandum of transfer under the Real Property Act, despite the company being deregistered at the time of the transfer. This fact was crucial in determining whether Bullen's involvement in the transaction constituted knowledge of the fraud.

After carefully considering the evidence, the court concluded that Bullen was not knowingly involved in any fraud associated with the transfer. The court found that there was no evidence to suggest that Bullen was aware that the company had been deregistered or that the transfer was invalid. As a result, the court held that the transfer and the subsequent creation of the joint tenancy were not defeasible at the suit of the plaintiff. The court found that the registration of the transfer under the Real Property Act conferred indefeasibility upon Bullen, and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

The court did not make any orders as the plaintiff's claim was dismissed. The defendant remained the registered proprietor of the property, and the transfer and the creation of the joint tenancy were upheld.