Permanent Mortgages Pty Ltd v Pastro

In the case of Permanent Mortgages Pty Ltd v Pastro, the appellant, Mr Pastro, appealed against decisions made by the Master of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The dispute centred on the validity of mortgages granted by Mr Pastro to the respondent, Permanent Mortgages Pty Ltd (PM), over various properties. These mortgages were intended to secure loans made to a company, SAPD, of which Mr Pastro was a director. The primary issues before the court involved the exceptions to the doctrine of indefeasibility of title under the Real Property Act 1886 (SA) and whether the appellant had raised an arguable case that could result in the matter being referred to the ordinary civil list instead of being dealt with in the summary possession list.

The court was required to determine whether Mr Pastro's case was arguable in relation to the exceptions to indefeasibility based on fraud, forgery, or unconscionable conduct by PM. The court examined the evidence presented to ascertain if there was any basis to argue that the mortgages were obtained through forgery or that PM had engaged in unconscionable conduct. The court noted that there was no evidence to support the appellant's claims of forgery or unconscionability. The court held that the appellant had not raised an arguable case supported by some evidence which, if accepted, could give rise to a defence based on fraud, forgery, or unconscionable conduct by PM.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the statutory exceptions to the doctrine of indefeasibility as outlined in the Real Property Act 1886 (SA). The court concluded that since there was no evidence of forgery or unconscionability, the exceptions did not apply. Additionally, the court found that the appellant had not demonstrated that the Master had erred in refusing to extend the time for removal of the caveats or in directing the Registrar General to remove a caveat registered by the appellant. The court found that the Master's decisions were correct and dismissed the appeal in all respects. Consequently, the court upheld the summary possession proceedings and directed that the caveats be removed without further extension.