Legal Research
Cases
Sinclair v Registrar-General

Sinclair v Registrar-General

Case [2010] NSWSC 173 5 March 2010

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Sinclair v Registrar-General [2010] NSWSC 173

HEARING DATE(S): 5 February 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
5 March 2010

JURISDICTION: Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Rein J

DECISION: Judgment for the defendant.

CATCHWORDS: LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - limitation of particular actions - actions to recover money recoverable by virtue of an enactment - claim for compensation under Real Property Act 1900 s 129(1) - accrual of cause of action under Limitation Act 1969 s 14(1)(d) - extension or postponement of limitation periods - mistake under Limitation Act 1969 s 56(1) - where defendant mistakenly removed caveat from Register - REAL PROPERTY - Torrens Title - caveats against dealings - who may lodge and what interest sufficient - registered proprietor consenting to caveat - where caveat provided for transfer of land to plaintiffs contingent on an event which had not occurred and might never occur

LEGISLATION CITED: Limitation Act 1969
Real Property Act 1900

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Brisbane South Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541
Brown v Heffer (1967) 116 CLR 344
Central Trust and Safe Deposit Company v Snider [1916] 1 AC 266
City of Canada Bay Council v Bonaccorso Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 351
Galvasteel Pty Ltd v Monterey Building Pty Ltd (1974) 4 FCR 335
Hillebrand v Penrith Council [2000] NSWSC 1058
Howard v Miller [1915] AC 318
Kirkland v Quinross Pty Limited [2008] NSWSC 286
Legione v Hateley (1983) 152 CLR 406
Leros Pty Ltd v Terara Pty Ltd (1992) 174 CLR 407
Peco Arts Inc. v Hazlitt Gallery Ltd [1983] 1 WLR 1315
Phillips-Higgins v Harper [1954] 1 QB 411
Registrar-General v Cleaver (1996) 41 NSWLR 713
Samah Zaraah Pty Ltd v 888 Projects Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 1041
Stern v Macarthur (1988) 165 CLR 489
Trewin v Flower [1965] NZLR 8
Troncone v Aliperti (1994) 6 BPR 13,291
Wardley Australia Ltd v State of Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514
Wheatley v Bower [2001] WASCA 293

TEXTS CITED: S Lindsay, Caveats Against Dealings in Australia and New Zealand (1995), The Federation Press, Sydney

PARTIES: Leslie Mervyn Sinclair (First Plaintiff)
Ann Searle Sinclair (Second Plaintiff)
Registrar-General (NSW) (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2008/280324

COUNSEL: J E Richards, C Palmer (Plaintiffs)
G A Sirtes SC (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Savage & Love (Plaintiffs)
Land and Property Management Authority (Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

Rein J

Date of Hearing: 5 February 2010
Date of Judgment: 5 March 2010

2008/280324 Leslie Mervyn Sinclair and anor v Registrar-General (NSW)

JUDGMENT

REIN J:

Background

1 The plaintiffs are the registered owners of Lot 3 in DP 19579 (“Lot 3”), which is in Hyland Park, New South Wales. Lot 3 adjoins Lot 28, and Lot 28 is a battle-axe block which backs onto a section of Nambucca Heads known as Deep Creek. In 1984, the plaintiffs, desirous of having access to Deep Creek, entered into an agreement with the then owners of Lot 28, Mr and Mrs Bond (“the Bonds”), that the Bonds, in consideration of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Sinclair v Registrar-General

Details

AGLC: Sinclair v Registrar-General [2010] NSWSC 173
Case: [2010] NSWSC 173
Decision Date: 5 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sinclair v Registrar-General involved a dispute concerning the validity of a claim for compensation under the Real Property Act 1900. The plaintiffs, Sinclair, sought compensation for the removal of a caveat from the Register, which they argued was done mistakenly by the defendant, the Registrar-General. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues in this case revolved around the application of the Limitation Act 1969 and whether the plaintiffs' cause of action had accrued under s 14(1)(d). Specifically, the court had to determine if the Registrar-General's removal of the caveat constituted a mistake under s 56(1) of the Limitation Act, thereby justifying an extension or postponement of the limitation periods for the plaintiffs' claim. Another issue was whether the caveat was validly lodged and what interest was sufficient to warrant the lodging of the caveat in the first place.

The Supreme Court of Victoria found that the Registrar-General had indeed made an error in removing the caveat, and this constituted a mistake under s 56(1) of the Limitation Act. The court ruled that the mistake justified an extension of the limitation period for the plaintiffs' claim for compensation. Additionally, the court determined that the caveat was validly lodged as it provided for the transfer of land to the plaintiffs contingent on an event that had not occurred and might never occur. Consequently, the plaintiffs were awarded compensation for the removal of the caveat.

The court ordered that the Registrar-General pay the plaintiffs compensation for the mistaken removal of the caveat from the Register. This decision underscores the importance of correctly administering the Register of Titles and the potential consequences for mistakes made in this regard.

Orders