Pedro Farming Co Pty Ltd v The Registrar of Titles

[1988] HCATrans 317

•

' 'i

',;-~~

•

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALTA

Office of the Registry

Melbourne No M80 of 1988

B e t w e e n -

PEDRO FARMING COMMUNITY CO.

PTY LTD

Applicant

and

THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES

Respondent

Application for special

leave to appeal

BRENNAN J
DAWSON J

GAUDRON J

Pedro

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON FRIDAY, 9 DECEMBER 1988, AT 3.05 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MlT 11/1/VH 1 9/12/88

MR C.A. PORTER:  If the Court pleases, I appear for the applicant

in this matter. (instructed by Pearce and Webster)

MR M. CRENNAN:  If it please the Court, I appear for the

respondent in this matter. (instructed by the Crown

Solicitor for Victoria)

BRENNAN J:	Mr Porter?
MR PORTER:	Your Honours, both the special leave question and the

proposition of law in this case turn on section 97(3)

of the TRANSFER OF LAND ACT. May I tender copies

of that Act to the Court? At the same time, Your Honours,

may I hand up a booklet of statutory exerpts which might

become relevant during my presentation? In this matter,

the Registrar of Titles refused to register a number

of instruments of transfer of parcels of lots on

Lodged Plan 2709. The significance of that plan is

that it was deposited at the Office of Titles in 1889.

The Registrar used his powers under section 97(3) to refuse to register the instruments of transfer without the consent of the council of the shire of Kilmore.

The Registrar's grounds are set out at pages 5 and

6 of the application book, Your Honours. Very shortly,

they were:

that the lots no longer enjoyed access to

a street or road; and

that separate titles had not previously been

issued for the parcels under Section 32 of

the TRANSFER OF LAND ACT.

It was clear, however, that the purpose of the refusal

was to prevent fragmentation of ownership of the land.

The land consisted of 341 lots of .15 hectates on a

total of 48 hectares. The applicant relied on section 116

of the TRANSFER OF LAND ACT to require the Registrar

touphold his grounds of refusal. The summons pursuant

to section 116 came before Mr Justice Crockett of

the Supreme Court 0£ Victoria and the application was

refused. It then came before the Full Court and

the same fate befell the application, Your Honours.

The proposition of law which I rely on in this

characteristics or the practical results of a plan of subdivision in deciding whether to refuse to

case is that section 97(3) does not authorize the

register an instrument of transfer of lots. So,

if you look at section 97(3) of the Act, what you

see is that the section appears in the context of an

Act which is to do with the registration of titles.

It comes in a part 0£ the Act which is to do with

surveys and subdivision. The history of the legislation

indicates that the section was inserted into the Act

at a time when the local councils were given the major

MlTll/ 3/VH	2	9/12/88
Pedro

responsibility for controlling the practical results

of subdivisions and so my submission was, and still is,

that the purpose of section 97(3) was to pick up, from

the point of view of the Office of Titles, the problem

which might arise if a plan of subdivision was not

sealed by a council, yet became registered at the Office

of Titles - - -

BRENNAN J:	How could that happen?
MR PORTER:	Well, Your Honour, until 1928, well, really until 1944,

the only requirement in Vicotira under the TRANSFER OF LAND ACT was for a plan of subdivision to be deposited

at the Office of Titles so that any transfers by

reference to lots could be identified; that is, the

purpose of requiring the plan to be lodged was to have

a plan so that the dimensions of each lot would be

known and the number of each lot would be known and

those facts could be used to describe the lot in any

subsequent transfers of land.

BRENNAN J:  So that it would be lodged in respect of one certificate

of title and then there could be transfers thereafter

resulting in fresh certificates of title for the

subdivided lots.

MR PORTER:  That is right, yes. Now, that position has existed

under the TRANSFER OF LAND ACT since the earliest

history or going right back into the earliest history

of the TRANSFER OF LAND ACT. But the LOCAL GOVERNMENT

ACT which controls the practical aspects of subdivisions

really started from 1914 when local councils were given

control over subdivisions in two respects only; that

was where roads or drainage might be affected. But,

in 1944, the local councils were given the responsibility

for sealing all plans of subdivision with very few

exceptions.

So, the position in 1944 was that the local

government legislation was amended to give the local

councils the ability to control, by deciding whether to seal or not.

DAWSON J:	And it provided somewhere that the plan will not be
registered until it is sealed; that is provided in
the LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, is that right?
MR PORTER:	That was provided in 1944 in the LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT,

Your Honour, yes.

DAWSON J: Yes, so that really, on your argument, this section

becomes otiose at that time?

MR PORTER:  No. All that the LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT provided was

that, if it was not lodged and registered at the

Office of Titles within one month, it would become

invalid. So the position under the LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT

was that if the plan was seale~ welL then the opportunity

existed to lodge it at the Office of Titles.	But the
1944 amdnment - - -

MlTll/3/VH	3	9/12/88
Pedro

DAWSON J:  But it would not be registered unless it was sealed.

MR PORTER:  Well now, that mechanism is what section 97 does or

provides. It is not provided under the LOCAL GOVERNMENT

ACT. So the purpose of the 1944 amendment was to enable

the Registrar of Titles to have a power, first of all,

to refuse to approve of a plan of subdivision if it

had not been sealed by the council. Now, my

submission was and still is that that power was not

sufficient because the relevance of a plan of

subdivision is fairly limited. Under the TRANSFER OF

LAND ACT you could transfer a lot or create a

subdivision by transferring part of a total. So if

you referred, in an instrument of transfer, to part

of the land by metes and bounds, you would produce

the practical result of a subdivision.

BRENNAN J: That was registrable, was it? The transfer of part of

the land comprised in the certificate of title was

registrable.

MR PORTER:	Yes, that is right.
BRENNAN J:	And what happened to the balance certificate of title?

MR PORTER: Well, under section 32 of the TRANSFER OF LAND ACT

you could obtain a title to each part.

BRENNAN J:	I see.
MR PORTER:	So, the position in 1944 was that, without section 97(3); the object of the amending legislation in 1944 would have
been defeated, or could have been defeated, in all
situations where a plan of subdivision was not actually
used as the vehicle to subdivide the land. When the
matter came before the Full Court there was no dispute
as to that background to the legislation. That is,
it was not disputed on behalf of the Registrar that the purpose of the amending legislation in 1944 which introduced section 97(3) was certainly to cover that
position.
There was, however, another argument put on behalf of the Registrar under the legislation prior to 1944, it was possible,
which coincided with the submission on behalf of the applicant. Reference was made to an article in the Law Institute Journal in 1929 where the
having created a pl.an of subdivision showing roads,
to indicate an intention that those roads should
not become easements and should not be registered, as it were,
as .roads.  So it was possible to withdraw the use
of roads under section 211 of the TRANSFER OF LAND ACT.

The argument on behalf of the Registrar was that

in 1929 as the Law Institute Journal indicated that

the Registrar. was concerned that titles or instruments

of transfer were being lodged which showed no access

to roads, that section 97(3) might quite possibly

MlTll/4/VH	4	9/12/88
Pedro

as well have been intended to provide the Registrar

with a power to refuse to register instruments of

transfer where no satisfactory provisions for

roads was made.

Your Honours, one of the problems about that

argument is that in 1959 the opportunity to withdraw

the use of roads was removed what had become

section 98 of the TRANSFER OF LAND ACT and yet

section 97(3) was allowed to remain. But the

submission that I made in response to that

argument basically was that, in 1929 the Victorian

Supreme Court had held that the Registrar had no

power to refuse to register an instrument of

transfer because roads were not provided and so

the strange position would arise whereby between

1929 and 1944 nothing was done. But in 1944 when

the whole process of controlling subdivisions was

rearranged in the legislation and when that was

obviously the major purpose of the introduction of

section 97(3),it would have to be argued on behalf

of the Registrar that that same opportunity was

used to resolve the problem that the Reigstrar had

no power to refuse to register instruments of transfer

where roads were not shown.

So, Your ijonours, the position, so far as the proposition of law on which I rely, which is set

out in full in the application book is that, if

you read section 97(3) there is a clause there which

indicates quite clearly that it is confined to a
situation such as I have described. It reads that:

The Registrar may in respect of any instrument or dealing relating to land -

and then the clause which follows reads -

whether such land is the subject of a lodged

plan or not -

and the section goes on -

require the consent of the council of the municipality in the municipal district of which the land is situate before registering

such instrument or dealing.

Now, if the clause that I have highlighted is to be

given any meaning, my submission is that the meaning

must be directed to a lodged plan. That is, it

must have something to do with a lodged plan and it
must have something to do with the significance of

whether or not a lodged plan exists or not. Now,

the perfect answer to that question is, or, to that

problem is, that if there is not a lodged plan and

there is a subdivision, well then section 97(3) would

enable the Registrar to require the consent of the

council before registering the instrument of transfer.

MlTll/5/VH	5	9/12/88
Pedro

BRENNAN J:  And if there is a lodged plan?

MR PORTER: If there is a lodged plan, earlier sections in

the 1944 amendment cover that situation. Indeed, they still do under section 97, as it now exists. 97(2A)(a) would cover that situation. Your Honours,

there was no dispute on the basic facts and I

understand there is no dispute now as to the special

leave aspect of this submission because, if the

Registrar has the power to refuse to register an
instrument of transfer of land without the consent

of the council, well then some extraordinary situations

of public importance arise because that power would

always be exercised after, for example, a mortgage

had been entered into, and foreclosure or sale had occurred. It would occur after a contract of sale

had been entered into and it could be exercised for

reasons having. regard to practical considerations of

town planning, local government, drainage and so on.

That would mean that all contracts of sale in Victoria and all mortgages and, indeed, all valuations

would then exist under section 97(3) as the Full Court

even, would be placed in some jeopardy or, at least,

at risk of being frustrated depending on how the

has found. My submission would be that the Registrar

himself would be placed in some difficulty because,

instead of being in a position to say, ''Well, this Act

places m:  in control of a register. The object of

that register is to enable me to supervise the

accurate and correct recording of transfers of land.",

he would have, no doubt, applications being made to

him for reasons which were truly the province of the

local councils and claims made that he was under some

duty where complaints existed to refuse to register

for reasons of practicalities rather than related to

pure title.

So it would be my submission that the matter is

of particular significance and I understand that is

not disputed on behalf of the Registar today.

DAWSON J:	The trouble is to read the words of subsection (3)
respectively.  The only reason you suggest, or reasons,
that that should be done is, one, the history of the
subsection and, secondly, that particular clause in the middle of it:

whether such land is the subject of a lodged

plan or not.

But they are words not of confinement but really of extension.

MR PORTER: Well, Your Honour, if I could perhaps list the arguments

that I have used to respond to that argument. Perhaps

I could refer you to the SUBDIVISION ACT 1988 which I will

MlTll/6/VH	6	9/12/88
Pedro

have copies handed to you to demonstrate the point

I seek to make. The section does not appear in that

part of the Act which gives or deals with the

general powers of the Registrar. But the

SUBDIVISION ACT 1988, which has had a second reading and which, I am instructed, is not likely to come

into force until mid or late in the autumn session

and is still the subject of considerable debate, does,

in fact, retain section 97(3) as section 106 of

the TRANSFER OF LAND ACT. The way that occurs is

that the SUBDIVISION ACT, in Schedule 2 contains

a list of amendments to the TRANSFER OF LAND ACT

and, at page 50 of the Act, item 111 - section 106

reads exactly as section 97(3) does now except that

that clause has been removed and the reason why the

section has been renumbered to 106 could only be that

it has been placed in the general part of the Act to

give that general power to the Registrar.

Now, it is a strange thing that the Registrar

has been given that general power in this amendment

because the SUBDIVISION ACT, which will replace the

relevant sections of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT dealing

with subdivision, deals with the situation of the

Registrar registering a plan.At section 22 on page 13

of the Act it specifically sets out what the

circumstances are in which the Registrar may register

a plan. I am instructed, Your Honours, that there

are submissions being made at the present time with
regard to item 111 and the broad power which the
Registrar has which are based on the results of the

Full Court's decision in this present case. That is,

to the effect that it would be a power which would be

far too wide for the Registrar ever to exercise for

practical reasons as opposed to reasons confined to

title.

Your Honour, if I might reply to your direct

question, which is why should not the Act, or the

section, simply be read literally? My submission is

clause that I have referred to is given force that to do that, one would need to be sure that the	and effect and it may well be that the clause could
be said to widen the power as a matter of technical
argument, but if you look at the power that is given without that clause it is as wide as it would ever need to be anyway. That is, it is virtually total. The
Registrar can refuse to register any instrument of
transfer of land.

DAWSON J: Except it may have been thought that a lodged plan of

subdivision gave some rights which would otherwise

not be overriden by the section.

MR PORTER: Well, it may have been, Your Honour, but the history

of the legislation makes it very clear what the purpose

of that - - -

MlTll/7/VH	7	9/12/88
Pedro

DAWSON J: There are two things: the history, and the existence

of that particular clause in the middle of the

subsection and, I suppose, a third thing, the place

in which the subsection finds itself in the Act.	We
are allowed to use headings, are we not?

MR PORTER:  Yes, I would ask you to do that, Your Honour, in this

case, because what I am saying really is that this is

a provision which is plainly directed to subdivision.

BRENNAN J: When you say you will ask us to do it, is it

authorized by the ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT?

MR PORTER:  Yes, Your Honour, it is. The submission I would make

is that parliamentary debates, the excerpt that I

have included in the application book makes it

absolutely clear that the intention of the legislature

in producing section 97(3) and the amendment of which

it formed part, was to set up a total control of

subdivision. So I would submit that the history of

the legislation clearly establishes that fact.

DAWSON J:  Under the Victorian Act we are allowed to look

at the parliamentary debates as well?

MR PORTER:	Yes.
DAWSON J:	You have not those there, have you?

MR PORTER: Well, I have an excerpt of the debates in the

application book, at - the whole of the debate appears

at page 43 of the supporting material which I have

handed to the Court this afternoon. But the precise

excerpt is in the application book, Your Honours.

DAWSON J:	I am sorry, which page was that?
MR PORTER:	Page 43 of the supplementary material and it is

page 17 of the original material.	The relevant passage
reads:

The object of the amendments is to ensure that

persons subdividing land into two or more
parts shall obtain the approval of the
council to the subdivision, so that
subdivisions will permit of sufficient

drainage and will comply with the

HEALTH ACT and LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT

requirements -

and so on -

after the proper layout of streets. Plans

of subdivisions, when sealed with the

approval of the council, are to be lodged

forthwith at the Titles Office.

MlTll/8/VH	8	9/12/88
Pedro

BRENNAN J: Well, why does it not cover this precisely? Here

you have a plan of subdivision, an old plan of

subdivision, and you wish to transfer a parcel of

land out of that subdivision and the Registrar says,

"No, you cannot do that." Now, why does that not fall

precisely within the intention expressed in that

part of the debate as well as within the literal words

of 97(3)?

MR PORTER: Well, for these reasons, Your Honour. First, that in

my submission, the legislation is not retrospective

so it can only apply to an instrument of transfer which

relates to land which has been subdivided or is being

subdivided.

BRENNAN J:  But when you say it has been subdivided or is being

subdivided, I understood you to say earlier that there

was no real significance in the lodging of a plan up

until 1944 because you could always transfer part of

the parcel that was comprising the certificate of

title anyhow. Then you needed to get a plan of

subdivision registered and 97(3) was brought in to

ensure that old plans of subdivision should not spawn

a number of several lots without the approval of

the council.

MR PORTER: Well, it would be the last proposition that I would

quibble with, so, Your Honour, what I would say is,

that prior to 1944 it was not necssary to have all

plans of subdivision sealed by the local council.

In 1899 when this plan was lodged at the Titles Office

it was not necessary to get any council approval.

DAWSON J:	But subsection (3) does not say anything about sealing of plans.
MR PORTER:	No, that is so, Your Honour, but - - -
BRENNAN J:	What is it about 97(3) that could apply to this case

or to any case where there is not a sealed plan?

MR PORTER:  The part of section 97(3) which can apply where

there is no sealed plan would be the part that refers

to the consent of the council to a plan of subdivision.

Your Honour, I wonder if I could just put this around

the other way. What I would say is that the intention
of the 1944 amendment was to prevent a plan of
subdivision being effected in a de facto sense, that is,

without an actual plan and without it being sealed

by the council. Now, that could have happened under

the legislation where no plan of subdivision was

produced for sealing but part of a lot or part of

a Crown allotment was transferred by reference to

metes and bounds. So what I say is section 97(3)

met that situation.

DAWSON J: There were two situations previously,were there not?

You could have a plan simply lodged, not sealed, and

you could subdivide in accordance with that plan.

MlTll/9/VH	9	9/12/88
Pedro

MR PORTER:	Yes.
DAWSON J:	Or you could just subdivide without a plan at all.
MR PORTER:	Yes.
DAWSON J:	And section 97(3) would seem to cover both those
situations, one of which is this situation.

MR PORTER: Well, it is only the last proposition that I

quibble with, Your Honour. What I would say is

DAWSON J: Well, why is it not the situation, because you have

here an instrument or dealing relating to land,

whether the land is the subject of a lodged plan.

It is the subject of a lodged plan and in that situation the Registrar required the consent of

the council before registering.

MR PORTER:	I would say, Your Honour, that in the case of these instruments of transfer, no attempt has been made to
subdivide.  They are not a de facto subdivision.
That is, they are simply transfers of lots on a
plan of subdivision which was lod0ed many years
earlier.

Tll	DAWSON J:	But they are in relation to a plan of subdivision
lodged.

BRENNAN J:  And they are subdivisions. There is only one parcel

of land at the moment out of which it is attempted to

create a number of parcels of land.

MR PORTER:  No, no, Your Honour. All these instruments of

transfer relate only to parcels of several lots.

There is no attempt to subdivide from a larger lot

down into a smaller lot.

GAUDRON J:	But that makes it a subdivision in itself, surely.
MR PORTER:	With respect, no, Your Honour, because the subdivision -

there is not a division, there is an addition of lots

in the case of these lots.

GAUDRON J:  Th.ere is aggregation of pre-existing lots to give a

different configuration to the actual parcels that

will come into existence.

MR PORTER: That issue, Your Honour, is not a live issue because

the purpose - there is an aggregation. The applicant

could easily avoid that situation by transferring

separate lots without an aggregation but the Registrar

does not want that to happen. He is not concerned

that there is one transfer relating to six lots and

he is not asking for six transfers of six lots.	What
he is saying is, "I am using my power here under

section 97(3) because in my opinion it goes outside

MlTl 2/1/PLC	10	9/12/88
Pedro

the limitation of transfers which are actually

effecting subdivision or relating to subdivision

and I am using it for the express purpose of

preventing this plan of subdivision from being

fragmented into different ownerships."

BRENNAN J:  Could you direct me to the definition of what is

meant by "subdivision"?

MR PORTER: Your Honour, the LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT contains

a definition of "subdivision". I will have - - -

BRENNAN J:  No doubt it does but is there anything in the

TRANSFER OF LAND ACT which defines "subdivision"?

MR PORTER:  No, Your Honour. There is a case at the back of

the supplementary material which I have handed - - -

DAWSON J:	Can I just, before you go to that, Mr Porter, just - I am a little confused, I must confess. When the
plan of subdivision was lodged, what was the state
of the land then?  Was it all in one certificate
of title?

MR PORTER:  No, it was in about 46 different titles. I am sorry,

if I could answer that question again. When my

client purchased the land in 1974 it was in nine

titles.	Between 1974 and 1987 46 titles had been
issued for various parts of the subdivision.	Some

of the titles were for single lots; others were for

multiple lots.

DAWSON J:	In accordance with the plan of subdivision which was
lodged?
MR PORTER:	Yes, perfectly in accordance with.

DAWSON J: And that provides for some 341 allotments.

MR PORTER:	Yes, that is right.
DAWSON J:	But only some of those allotments were subdivided
out of the title, is that right?

MR PORTER:  Yes, that is right. Sometimes they were subdivided

in units of one lot; others, other times, in

larger lots. Your Honours, if you look at the -

you will see a copy - - -

DAWSON J: And the instrument which is lodged now which we are

arguing about, what does it do?

MR PORTER: Well, there are several instruments lodged now

and what they do is to transfer groups of lots,

that is, they make no attempt to resubdivide the

land; they relate generally to about six lots each

of .15 of a hectare.

DAWSON J:  In respect of which separate titles had already been
issued?

MlT12/2/PLC	11	9/12/88
Pedro

MR PORTER:  No, Your Honour, not always.

DAWSON J: Well then, it would be a subdivision in accordance

with the plan.

MR PORTER:  I would submit that that is not so, Your Honour,

because the issue of the title is not determinative

of where the subdivision exists. The Registrar,

under section 32, has an obligation to issue a

separate title for every one of the 341 lots or,

indeed, for any group of parcels of lots without

there being a subdivision. "Subdivision" is not

itself defined but in RE NELSON AND TAMMER'S

CONTRACT, a decision of Mr Justice Smith

in 1959 which is set out at the back of the

supplementary materiaL it is discussed and

in the course of the discussion the conclusion is
reached that subdividing really means dividing
the land and so there is a discussion which goes to

the effect that if you have eight terrace houses

on a single lot and you lease out each terrace house,

you have, in effect, subdivided the land.

BRENNAN J: That is why I was wondering where the definition

of "subdivision" is. We do not have one, I gather.

MR PORTER:  There are definitions in the LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT

now, Your Honour - - -

BRENNAN J: Yes, I can understand that, of course, because

on that definition, no doubt, hinges the Local

Government authority's power to approve plans

of subdivision and the like which then have their

own life to lead. But so far as the Registrar's

duty is concerned, his duty is to issue a certificate

of title under section 32, irrespective of whether

the certificate of title is sought in respect of a

portion of an existing parcel of land or not and

irrespective of whether or not a plan of subdivision

has been lodged. subject, however, to section 32(1A)

in cases to which subsection (lA) may apply.

MR PORTER:  Yes, that is so, Your Honour.

BRENNAN J: Then in cases to which that subsection does not

apply, the only power which the Registrar has to

refrain from issuing a new certificate of title,

separate from the existing certificate of title,

can be found, if at all, in 97(3).

MR PORTER:  No, Your Honour, because section 97(3) is the

power to refuse to register an instrument of

transfer.

BRENNAN J: It is an "instrument or dealing relating to land".

You would ordinarily register the instrument of

transfer.

MR PORTER:  Yes.

M1Tl2/3/PLC	12	9/12/88
Pedro

BRENNAN J: There would be a partially cancelled certificate

of title and there would be a new certiticate of

title issued in respect of the parcel of land which

was the subject of the instrument of transfer that

has been registered.

MR PORTER:  That situation could not happen because of the

existence of section 97 of the TRANSFER OF LAND ACT,

that is, if you try to transfer out part of a Crown

allotment or part of a larger piece of land without

subdividing it, then the Registrar can use his

powers under section 97(2A) ,(2B) and (3) to prevent

that from happening.	I say that is the purpose of
those sections.

BRENNAN J: That is assuming then that the plans that have been

lodged before (2A) and (2B) come into operation

have already done their work.

MR PORTER:  Which is what I say the case is here.

BRENNAN J: Yes. And the question is why should it be so

when you have the general provision in subsection (3)

that I presume must have been inserted in the Act

before subsection (2A) and subsection (2B) were

inserted.

MR PORTER:  Your Honour, the way I would put it is that there

is no point in bringing the council into this if it

has no power. Now, the only power the council has

is to decide whether or not to seal a plan of

subdivision.

BRENNAN J:  The power the council has is that which

it has under subsection (3), is it not, to consent

to the instrument or dealing?

MR PORTER:  It certainly has no independent power under the

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, Your Honour, and what

Your Honour says could apply but what I would say

in response to that is that as section 97(3)

appears in a division which is dealing with

"subdivision" and section 97(2A) plainly gives

the Registrar the power not to approve a plan of

subdivision unless it has been sealed, Your Honour,

that the balance of section 97(3), Your Honour,

where it relates to instruments of transfer

must relate to transfers which are not accompanied

by plans.

Your Honours, if I could sunnnarize my proposition

of law. I would deal with the argument that the

section should be read literally by referring to the

overall context of the TRANSFER OF LAND ACT, to the

particular division of the TRANSFER OF LAND ACT, and

to the debates in order to support my submission.

But this is a situation where a section was needed

such as section 97(3) to cover the situation where

M1Tl2/4/PLC	13	9/12/88
Pedro

a transfer was attempted without the production of

a plan and that having regard to the fact that the

Registrar has no wider powers outside this particular

section, that is, that all his other powers are

confined to strictly matters of title, it would be

a very strange thing if a section such as section 97(3)

found in this position in the Act were to have

been intended to give such a wide power as its

literal interpretation would indicate.	Thank you,
Your Honours.

BRENNAN J:  We need not trouble you, Mr Grennan.

Although the question which the applicant seeks

to agitate in this case has some importance, after

a consideration of the argument that has been

presented to us by Mr Porter, the Court is of opinion that the decision of the court below was not attended with sufficient doubt to justify the grant of special leave. Special leave is accordingly refused.

MR GRENNAN:	We would seek costs, Your Honour.
MR PORTER:	I have nothing to say in response to that,

Your Honour.

BRENNAN J: Yes, very well. It will be refused with

costs.

AT 3.47 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

MlT12/5/PLC	14	9/12/88
Pedro