Wolfson v Registrar-General (NSW)

In *Wolfson v Registrar-General (NSW)*, the appellant, Jacob Wolfson, sought to be registered as the proprietor of certain lands under the *Real Property Act 1900* (NSW) by way of transmission following the death of his father, Harris Wolfson. The dispute arose when the Registrar-General refused to register the transmission without endorsing the certificates of title with a notification referring to specific provisions of a partnership agreement between the father and son. The agreement stipulated that the surviving partner would become absolutely entitled to partnership assets, including the lands in question, subject to certain payments to the deceased partner's widow and legal representative, and that the lands were not to be sold during the lifetime of the partners' wives without their consent.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the Registrar-General was justified in refusing to register the transmission of the lands to Jacob Wolfson without endorsing the certificates of title with a notification of the provisions of the partnership agreement. This involved determining whether these provisions created equitable interests or encumbrances on the land that necessitated such a notification, and whether the consents obtained from the deceased partner's legal representative and wives were sufficient to obviate the need for such a notification.

Rich and Evatt JJ. held that the Registrar-General was not entitled to endorse the certificates of title with a notification referring to the partnership agreement provisions. They reasoned that while the agreement might create equitable rights, the policy of the *Real Property Act* is to keep trusts off the register, and such rights should be protected by caveat rather than notification. They found that the consents obtained from the relevant parties provided sufficient warrant for the Registrar-General to ignore any potential lien or encumbrance. Starke J., however, concluded that the application by way of transmission was misconceived and should be dismissed, without definitively ruling on the Registrar-General's notification requirement.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Supreme Court. It was declared that the Registrar-General ought not to enter a notification referring to the provisions of the partnership agreement on any certificate of title issued to the appellant. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs in the Supreme Court and of the appeal.