Young v Hoger

Case [2000] QSC 455


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Young and Ors v Hoger and Ors [2000] QSC 455
PARTIES: WILLIAM IAN YOUNG, DELICE YOUNG, GARY ALAN GRANT, EVELYN JEAN GRANT and LAKE MAPLE PTY LTD
(plaintiffs)
v
ELVIN JOHN HOGER
(first defendant)
MERLE EDITH HOGER
(second defendant)
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(third party)
FILE NO/S: S 8689 of 2000
DIVISION: Trial
PROCEEDING: Action for recovery of possession of land
DELIVERED ON: 6 December 2000
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 19 July 2000 – 27 July 2000
JUDGE: Douglas J
ORDER: a) The plaintiff’s action for recovery of possession of land be dismissed;
b) The Registrar of titles be directed to remove the plaintiff’s mortgage from the freehold land registrar and to cancel the mortgage;and
c) The plaintiff’s pay the first defendant damages in the sum of $42,250.
CATCHWORDS:

CONVEYANCING – LAND TITLES UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM – INDEFEASIBILITY OF TITLE – EXCEPTIONS – FRAUD OR FORGERY – husband and wife joint tenants of certain land – wife and daughter complicit in forging security documents and procuring mortgage  – whether conduct of the mortgagees’ solicitor in registering the mortgage amounted to fraud – whether equitable mortgage survives in relation to complicit joint tenant.

Property Law Act 1974
Land Title Act 1994
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Commonwealth)

Assets Co Ltd v Mere Roihi [1905] AC 176
Breskvar v Wall (1971) 126 CLR 376
Frazer v Walker [1967] 1 AC 569
Flourentzou v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1997) NSWConvR 55-281
Immer (No 45) Pty Ltd v Uniting Church in Australian Property Trust (NSW) (1993) 182 CLR 26
Koorootang Nominees Pty Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [1998] 3 VR 16
National Commercial Banking Corporation of Australia Ltd v Headley (1984) NSWConvR 55-211
Russo v Bendigo Bank Limited [1999] VSCA 108
Sargent v ASL Developments Ltd (1974) 131 CLR 634.
Schultz v Corwall Properties [1969] 2 NSWR 576

COUNSEL: J A Griffin QC with him B G Cronin for plaintiffs
D J Campbell for first defendant
R J Douglas SC with him B J Clarke for third party
SOLICITORS: Walsh & Partners Litigation Lawyers for plaintiffs
J J Riba & Company Solicitors for first defendant
C W Lohe, Crown Solicitor, for third party
  1. DOUGLAS J:   The plaintiffs are the registered mortgagees under Mortgage No 702569150 registered on 19 March 1998 over the land described as Lot 2 on RP 152209 in the County of Canning, Parish of Mooloolah.

  1. There is no doubt that the mortgagors on the face of the mortgage, the first and second defendants, are in default.

  1. The Bill of Mortgage entitles the mortgagee to take possession if the mortgagor is in default.  Default has occurred through the non payment of interest on the first day of each month pursuant to Clause 2 thereof, and the non payment of the principal at the expiration of 12 months pursuant to Clause 1.

  1. Demand for possession was made, and because some uncertainty arises as to whether the demand was actually received as required by…

Continue reading Young v Hoger

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Young v Hoger [2000] QSC 455
Case
[2000] QSC 455
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Young v Hoger, the parties involved were a husband and wife, who were joint tenants of certain land, and a mortgagee who had taken a mortgage over the property. The wife and the daughter were complicit in forging security documents and procuring the mortgage. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central legal issues were whether the conduct of the mortgagees’ solicitor in registering the mortgage amounted to fraud, and if an equitable mortgage survived in relation to the complicit joint tenant.

The court considered the principles of indefeasibility of title under the Torrens system and the exceptions to this principle, particularly fraud or forgery. It was determined that the solicitor's conduct did not amount to fraud as it was not established that they had actual knowledge of the forgery. The court further held that an equitable mortgage could not survive in relation to the complicit joint tenant because she was aware of the fraudulent nature of the mortgage. Consequently, the mortgage was found to be void ab initio.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action for recovery of possession of the land, directed the Registrar of titles to remove the plaintiff's mortgage from the freehold land registrar and to cancel the mortgage, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the first defendant damages in the sum of $42,250.

Orders

Orders of the court

a) The plaintiff’s action for recovery of possession of land be dismissed;

b) The Registrar of titles be directed to remove the plaintiff’s mortgage from the freehold land registrar and to cancel the mortgage;and

c) The plaintiff’s pay the first defendant damages in the sum of $42,250.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.