LLB301 Real Property Law Assignment 2 2024 Assignment Feedback Part 1: Sale of mother's property at 22 Baildon Street, Bulimba There were two key points that needed to be discussed in this part (1) co-ownership and (2) whether there were any exceptions to indefeasibility and most importantly what remedy John is most likely to obtain. Co-ownership Many students did not note the co-ownership relationship. A brief discussion was required on this point. As John and Beryl owned the Baildon Street Property at Bulimba as tenants-in-common in equal shares it was important to recognise that while each of them holds a separate interest in the property that Beryl could not alienate the whole property without John's consent Farrelly v Hircock (No 1). The transaction that Beryl had entered would be a nullity, subject to the effect of registration and the operation of indefeasibility. This then leads to the second point as to whether there is an exception to indefeasibility. Exceptions to indefeasibility / Compensation Answers were then required to very briefly explain that the Land Titles Act 1994 (Qld) regulates the registration of freehold land and interests in Queensland. It is the Torrens statute in Queensland and creates a system of title by registration rather than a system of registration of title: Breskvar v Wall (1971) 126 CLR 376, 385-6 (per Barwick CJ). The registration of the transfer from Beryl to Gareth and Tilly provided them with the benefit of indefeasibility: ss 182 and 184 LTA except where an exception to indefeasibility arises: s185. The facts did not provide any evidence to suggest that Gareth and Tilley were in anyway part of a fraudulent transaction prior to becoming registered proprietors of the lot. Gareth and Tilly were bona fide purchasers for value and on the facts, there were no exceptions to their indefeasible title and therefore the lot will not revert to John. The status of their ownership interest should have been quickly identified before discussing the remedies available to John. At this point it should have been noted that it was unlikely that John would have the property transferred back to him. Having recognised this point many students then proceeded with an analysis of whether there was an exception to indefeasibility which was not the preferable way to analyse the outcome for John. The better framework for analysis was John to claim compensation from the State under s188 LTA. Regardless of the approach taken, provided the fraud issue was identified students were able to demonstrate their understanding of what fraud is in the context of the Torrens system and still achieve good marks. Fraud by Beryl Transfer document 1 (dated Jan 2022). This is clearly a case of fraud s 184(3)(b) of the LTA. To do well students were required to define fraud as actual fraud, dishonesty of some sort ... which is brought home to the registered proprietor or his [sic] agent: Assets Co Ltd v Mere Roihi; Bahr v Nicolay (No 2) per Mason CJ and Dawson Jfi