Re: Land Title Act of 1994

The Supreme Court of Queensland heard a case concerning the proper registration of a re-survey plan under the Land Title Act 1994. The applicant, Douglas Macleod Beams, sought an order for the Registrar of Land Titles to correct the freehold land register by properly recording the details of re-survey plan 905522, which had been registered on 22 December 1998. The Registrar, Graeme Mitchell, was required to include the words and figures "Plan of re-survey No. 905522" in the part of the freehold land register that records the current status of the title of lot 29 on registered plan 12574. The issue was whether the Registrar's method of recording the re-survey plan complied with the requirements of the Land Title Act 1994.

The court examined sections 27, 28, 30, 32, 35, 37, and 38 of the Registrar’s Act and the Land Title Act 1994 to determine the obligation to register a plan of re-survey. The Registrar had altered the register to include the notation "PLAN OF RE-SURVEY 905522" under the heading "ADMINISTRATIVE ADVICES." The applicant argued that this did not comply with the Act as it did not appear in the part of the register accessible on a search of the 'indefeasible title' to the lot. The Registrar contended that the change conformed to the court's previous declaration and that section 8(1) of the Act allowed for the register to be kept in an appropriate form. The court found that while the method had imperfections, it did not infringe on any specific requirements of the Act. The Registrar's method of recording, despite not being ideal, was deemed sufficient.

The court dismissed the applicant's application and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application, to be taxed. The Registrar's inclusion of the re-survey plan under "ADMINISTRATIVE ADVICES" was held not to be erroneous or misleading, and the absence of the word "registered" before the re-survey plan did not suggest lack of registration. The court concluded that the Registrar's actions met the requirements of the Land Title Act 1994, and the registration of the re-survey plan was valid.