This is an extract of our Compensation (Assurance Fund) Problem document, which we sell as part of our Property B Notes collection written by the top tier of Monash University students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Property B Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Compensation (assurance fund) Introduction Due to the loss arising by [how it arose], ... may seek to claim from the assurance fund. What losses may ... claim for?
Such claims may be made where a loss is suffered by:
1. Bringing land under the Torrens system or creation of a folio (TLA s 110(1)(a))
2. A legal practitioner's failure to disclose a defect in title in a legal practitioner's certificate (TLA s 110(1)(aa))
3. Amendments to the register: s 110(1)(b) o
fraud may fall under thisif the claimant's failure to establish a mortgage was unenforceable was due to a sufficiently serious defect in the manner of conducting the proceeding, such defect might constitute an intervening act that severs the chain of causation between registration of the mortgage and the claimant's loss (obiter in Solak v Registrar of Titles)
Alternatively, the defect could arguably constitute "neglect" within the meaning of s 110(3)(a) (Solak v Registrar)
4. Error, omission or misdescription in the register: s 110(1)(c) o
Fraud may fall under this (see notes directly above)
5. The making of a payment on the faith of a recording in the register , causing loss or damage: s 110(1)(d)
6. the loss or destruction of any document lodged at the Titles Office (TLA s 110(e))
7. Mistakes made by the Registrar or his officers: s 110(1)(f) o
Does not extend to a misdescription of the boundaries of the property (unless by conversion)
8. An exercise of the Registrar's powers: s 110(1)(g) Proof of loss A decision against the claimant under which he/she suffers loss is proof that a loss has occurred; the Registrar will be unable to argue that the loss did not occur simply because perhaps it could have been avoided: Solak v Registrar of Titles.The Registrar cannot undo loss by showing in a subsequent proceeding that, as between the Registrar and the plaintiff, the mortgage is unenforceable (Solak v Registrar of Titles)
Claims may not be made where the loss is occasioned by:
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Property B Notes.