Solak v Registrar of Titles

Solak commenced proceedings against the Registrar of Titles seeking an indemnity under section 110 of the Transfer of Land Act 1958. The claim arose from a forged mortgage that had been registered over Solak's property. The Registrar of Titles applied for summary dismissal of Solak's claim on the basis of Anshun estoppel. The application was successful and Solak appealed the decision. The appeal was dismissed but Solak appealed to the High Court.

The central legal issue was whether the Registrar of Titles could rely on Anshun estoppel to prevent Solak from claiming an indemnity under section 110 of the Transfer of Land Act 1958. The court had to determine whether the Registrar of Titles was bound by the outcome of a prior proceeding where the enforceability of the mortgage had been unsuccessfully challenged. The court also needed to consider whether the Registrar of Titles could challenge the enforceability of the mortgage as a defence to Solak's claim for indemnity under section 110 of the Transfer of Land Act 1958.

The court found that the decision below was vitiated by an error of fact. The scheme of the Transfer of Land Act 1958 did not exclude Anshun estoppel. The Registrar of Titles' defences challenging the enforceability of the mortgage were doomed to fail. There was no risk of inconsistent judgments. Anshun estoppel was not established. The court held that the Registrar of Titles was not estopped from challenging the enforceability of the mortgage. The appeal was allowed and the Registrar of Titles was not entitled to summary dismissal of Solak's claim.

The court found that the Registrar of Titles could challenge the enforceability of the mortgage as a defence to Solak's claim for indemnity under section 110 of the Transfer of Land Act 1958. The court held that the Consumer Credit Code did not make the mortgage unenforceable even if it was registered under the Transfer of Land Act 1958. The Registrar of Titles was not entitled to summary dismissal of Solak's claim. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Court of Appeal for further proceedings.