Fisher and Lightwood's law of mortgage [Third Australian edition.] 9780409332599, 0409332593

Table of contents :
Cover Page
Full Title
Copyright
Preface
Table of Cases
Table of Statutes
Table of Contents
Introduction
Part I Mortgages and Charges
Chapter 1 Mortgages and Other Securities Generally
Chapter 2 Charges and Liens
Chapter 3 Mortgages of Land at Common Law
Chapter 4 Mortgages of Torrens System Land
Chapter 5 Security Interests in Personal Property covered by the PPSA
Chapter 6 Mortgages of Personal Property Not Affected By PPSA
Chapter 7 Statutory Charges and Judgments
Chapter 8 Debentures
Chapter 9 Special Securities
Chapter 10 Second and Subsequent Mortgages
Part II Parties to Mortgages
Chapter 11 Parties to Mortgages
Part III The Mortgagor's Rights
Chapter 12 Mortgagor's Rights
Part IV Void or Imperfect Securities
Chapter 13 Void or Imperfect Securities
Part V Transfer and Devolution of Mortgages
Chapter 14 Transfer and Devolution of Mortgages
Chapter 15 Sub-mortgages
Part VI The Mortgagee's Remedies
Chapter 16 The Mortgagee's Remedies
Chapter 17 The Personal Remedy
Chapter 18 The Appointment of a Receiver
Chapter 19 The Mortgagee's Right to Possession
Chapter 20 The Mortgagee's Power of Sale
Chapter 21 Foreclosure and Judicial Sale
Chapter 22 Procedure on Foreclosure
Chapter 23 Insolvency of Mortgagor
Part VII Priorities of Mortgages
Chapter 24 Priorities of Mortgages
Chapter 25 Tacking Further Advances
Chapter 26 Priority by Notice to Trustees
Chapter 27 Effect of Registration of Deeds
Chapter 28 Effect of the Torrens System
Part VIII Incidence of the Mortgage Debt
Chapter 29 Incidence on the Death of the Mortgagor
Chapter 30 Incidence as Between Different Properties
Chapter 31 Consolidation
Part IX Discharge of the Mortgage
Chapter 32 Redemption
Chapter 33 Redemption Proceedings
Chapter 34 The Release of the Debt or Security
Chapter 35 Waiver and Allied Concepts
Chapter 36 Merger
Chapter 37 Destruction or Loss of the Property
Chapter 38 Discharge or Modification by Statute
Part X Accounts and Costs
Chapter 39 Accounts
Chapter 40 Costs
Part XI Taxation Considerations
Chapter 41 Taxation Considerations
Part XII Miscellaneous Matters
Chapter 42 Miscellaneous Aspects of Mortgages
Index

Citation preview

Fisher and Lightwood’s

Law of Mortgage Third Australian Edition

E L G Tyler MA (Oxon) Barrister, Lincoln’s Inn and Hong Kong Legal Practitioner of the Supreme Court of Tasmania and the High Court and Federal Courts of Australia formerly a District Judge, Hong Kong, and Professor of Law in the University of Hong Kong and the City University of Hong Kong Senior Assistant Law Officer, Commercial III (Companies Ordinance Rewrite) Department of Justice, HK SARG

The Hon P W Young AO QC LLB (Syd) A former Chief Judge in Equity, Supreme Court of New South Wales formerly Queens Counsel for New South Wales, Victoria, the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory, Papua New Guinea and from time to time admitted as Senior Counsel in Fiji Acting Judge and Acting Judge of Appeal, Supreme Court of New South Wales

The Hon C E Croft BEc LLM (Monash), PhD(Cambridge), LFACICA, LFIAMA, JFAMINZ, FCIArb A Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria Adjunct Professor of Law, Deakin University

LexisNexis Butterworths Australia 2014

AUSTRALIA

ARGENTINA AUSTRIA BRAZIL CANADA CHILE CHINA CZECH REPUBLIC FRANCE GERMANY HONG KONG HUNGARY INDIA ITALY JAPAN KOREA MALAYSIA NEW ZEALAND POLAND SINGAPORE SOUTH AFRICA SWITZERLAND TAIWAN

LexisNexis LexisNexis Butterworths 475–495 Victoria Avenue, Chatswood NSW 2067 On the internet at: www.lexisnexis.com.au LexisNexis Argentina, BUENOS AIRES LexisNexis Verlag ARD Orac GmbH & Co KG, VIENNA LexisNexis Latin America, SAO PAULO LexisNexis Canada, Markham, ONTARIO LexisNexis Chile, SANTIAGO LexisNexis China, BEIJING, SHANGHAI Nakladatelství Orac sro, PRAGUE LexisNexis SA, PARIS LexisNexis Germany, FRANKFURT LexisNexis Hong Kong, HONG KONG HVG-Orac, BUDAPEST LexisNexis, NEW DELHI Dott A Giuffrè Editore SpA, MILAN LexisNexis Japan KK, TOKYO LexisNexis, SEOUL LexisNexis Malaysia Sdn Bhd, PETALING JAYA SELANGOR LexisNexis, WELLINGTON Wydawnictwo Prawnicze LexisNexis, WARSAW LexisNexis, SINGAPORE LexisNexis Butterworths, DURBAN Staempfli Verlag AG, BERNE LexisNexis, TAIWAN

UNITED KINGDOM USA

LexisNexis UK, LONDON, EDINBURGH LexisNexis Group, New York, NEW YORK LexisNexis, Miamisburg, OHIO

National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Author: Title: Edition: ISBN: Notes: Subjects: Other Authors/Contributors: Dewey Number:

Tyler, E. L. G. (Edward Lawson Griffin). Fisher & Lightwood’s law of mortgage. 3rd edition. 9780409332599 (pbk). 9780409332605 (ebk). Includes index. Mortgages — Australia. Young, P. W. (Peter Wolstenholme). Croft, Clyde. 346.9404364

© 2014 Reed International Books Australia Pty Limited trading as LexisNexis. First edition 1995; Second edition 2005. This book is copyright. Except as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part of this publication may be reproduced by any process, electronic or otherwise, without the specific written permission of the copyright owner. Neither may information be stored electronically in any form whatsoever without such permission. Inquiries should be addressed to the publishers. Typeset in Plantin. Printed in China. Visit LexisNexis Butterworths at www.lexisnexis.com.au

Preface Up until recently, there were few Australian textbooks covering the law of mortgages. Because of this, there has been more frequent recourse to the standard English works on the subject than is the case with other aspects of the law. When Britain became more and more immersed in the European Union, it seemed probable that Australians would be less and less be able to rely on the latest edition of English textbooks without making significant local adjustments. It was this that caused the authors to approach the publishers with the suggestion of an Australian edition of this standard work As things developed, the Europeans did not agree on a standard form of mortgage and English law still exists in its traditional form. However, the exercise of “Australianizing” the book has still proved that to be the right decision. Even apart from the Common Market, there was the additional problem for Australian lawyers that, for obvious reasons, English works do not deal with the Torrens System. English common law concepts with respect to mortgages are, however, essential to an understanding of that System. Fisher on Mortgages first saw the light of day in 1856. The first four editions were written by the eminent Wiliiam Richard Fisher. A concise biography of Fisher appears in the 13th English edition at pp viiff. The fifth and sixth under the editorship of the famous Sir Arthur Underhill, and the seventh, in 1931, under the respected J M Lightwood. That edition (with a slim supplement issued after the War) lasted until 1969, when Ted Tyler produced the eighth edition. Ted has also edited the ninth and tenth editions. The eleventh English edition was completely rewritten by members of Falcon Chambers, London, and they have also produced the 12th and 13th English editions. This third Australian edition has built on the work of the previous editions and has taken into account both Australian developments and also developments in England including those noted in the 13th English edition. It is mutually beneficial that under the one publisher, the Australian and English editions have been able to feed off each other.

The principal adjustment in this edition has been to accommodate the considerable changes made to personal property securities by the Personal Property Securities Act, 2009 (Cth) (PPSA). However, there has also been a steady flow of cases from the superior courts and a great increase in cases dealing with forgeries. PPSA seems to have complicated rather than simplified work in the area of securities over personally. There are considerable problems as to its reach and questions as to how Australian Courts will apply it. We thought it advisable in this edition both to expound PPSA, but also retain the old law which will still apply to closed transactions for some years to come. We have worked very closely together despite the distance that separated us. Professor Ted Tyler produced his manuscript in Hong Kong. However, Justices Peter Young and Clyde Croft had to prepare their material whilst maintaining their normal output of curial decisions. Chapter 5 on PPSA was drafted by Ms Clare Langford, the NSW Supreme Court Equity Researcher. Chapter 41 on Taxation Considerations has been completely rewritten and we give our special thanks to Mr Michael Flynn, of the Victorian Bar, who extensively rewrote, revised and expanded this chapter. Our thanks go to two groups of people. First, to our own families and personal staff, especially Pam Young, Krystyna Croft, second to those at LexisNexis Butterworths who have made the work such a successful production, particularly Hayley Moore. Ted Tyler Peter Young Clyde Croft October 2013

Table of Cases References are to paragraphs 1253174 Ontario Inc v Tarion Warranty Corp (2010) 17 PPSAC (3d) 373 .… 5.37 518718 Alberta Ltd v Canadian Forest Products Ltd [1993] 3 WWR 672 .… 5.121 674921 BC Ltd v Advanced Wing Technologies Corp (2006) 9 PPSAC (3d) 43; 263 DLR (4th) 290 .… 5.38 695113 Ontario Ltd v Commissioner of Stamps (1990) 53 SASR 274; 20 ATR 1807 .… 9.24 888 Casino & Tavern Pty Ltd v Hurlfobe Pty Ltd (1997) 8 BPR 15,505 .… 1.23 977380 Ontario Inc v Roy’s Towing Co (1997) 13 PPSAC (2d) 201 .… 5.40 994814 Ontario Inc v RSL Canada Inc and En-Plas Inc (2005) 14 CBR (5th) 134 .… 5.15, 5.38 994814 Ontario Inc v RSL Canada Inc (2006) 20 CBR (5th) 163 .… 5.30 A A and M Records Inc v Darakdjian [1975] 3 All ER 983; [1975] 1 WLR 1610 .… 7.5 A Tomlinson (Hauliers) v Hepburn [1966] AC 451 .… 3.20 A v B1 (No 2) (2012) 271 FLR 122 .… 1.55 Abacus (CI) Ltd v Sheikh Fahad (13 June 2003, seemingly unreported) .… 42.22 Abbey National Building Society v Cann [1991] 1 AC 56; [1990] 1 All ER

1085 .… 5.79, 12.21, 24.1 Abbey National Building Society v Maybeech Ltd [1985] Ch 190 .… 37.10 Abbott v Stratton (1846) 3 Jo & Lat .… 1.34, 1.40, 7.8, 24.49 Abenheim, Re; Ex parte Abenheim (1913) 109 LT 219 .… 6.22 Aberamain Ironworks v Wickens (1868) LR 4 Ch App 101 .… 2.15 Aberdeen v Chitty (1839) 3 Y & C Ex 379; 160 ER 749 .… 16.15 Abergavenny’s Case (1607) 6 Co Rep 78b; 77 ER 373 .… 11.4 Abigail v Lapin (1934) 51 CLR 58 .… 1.15, 4.22, 4.24, 4.27, 28.7, 28.14 Abigail v Lapin [1934] AC 491; [1934] All ER Rep 720 .… 4.23, 28.7, 28.11, 28.12, 28.13, 28.16 Abington v Green (1866) 14 WR 852 .… 16.38 Abney v Wordsworth (1701) 9 Sim 317n; 59 ER 380 .… 22.35 Abram v Bank of New Zealand [1996] ATPR 41-507 .… 13.2, 13.35, 19.2, 38.5 Accent Leasing & Sales Ltd v Babic (2007) 12 PPSAC (3d) 1 .… 5.19 Access Advertising Management Inc v Servex Computers Inc (1993) 15 OR (3d) 635 .… 5.1, 5.35 Access Cash International Inc v Elliot Lake & North Shore Corp for Business Development 1 PPSAC (3d) 209 (2000) .… 5.23 Accles Ltd, Re; Hodgson v Accles Ltd (1902) 51 WR 57 .… 8.5 ACN 077 991 890 v National Australia Bank (2007) 13 BPR 24,299 .… 30.9, 30.11 Across Australia Finance v Kalls (2008) 14 BPR 26,265 .… 30.9, 30.10, 30.12, 30.17 Acton v Acton (1704) Prec Ch 237; 24 ER 115 .… 1.27 Actors and Announcers Equity Association of Australia v Fontana Films Pty Ltd (1982) 150 CLR 169 .… 5.25 Adam v Newbigging (1888) 13 App Cas 308 .… 6.22

Adams v Angell (1877) 5 Ch D 634 .… 36.7, 36.9, 36.10 Adams v Bank of New South Wales [1984] 1 NSWLR 285 .… 4.25, 10.12, 20.43, 20.44, 20.46, 20.48, 21.20, 24.20, 39.2, 39.21 Adams v Claxton (1801) 6 Ves 226; 31 ER 1024 .… 3.41 Adams v Paynter (1844) 1 Coll 530; 63 ER 530 .… 22.5, 33.14 Adams v Sworder (1863) 2 De G J & Sm 44; 46 ER 291 .… 39.24 Adamse v Broadway Credit Union Ltd [1989] NSW ConvR 55-576 .… 20.30 Adamse v Broadway Credit Union Ltd (1999) NSW ConvR ¶55-976 .… 20.21 Adamson v Halifax plc [2003] 1 WLR 60 .… 39.2 Adcock v Jolly (1893) 19 VLR 609 .… 6.4, 6.9 Addison v Billion [1983] 1 NSWLR 586 .… 4.8, 4.40, 16.19, 16.20, 16.21, 32.1, 32.80, 32.85, 39.15 Addison v Cox (1872) LR 8 Ch App 76 .… 26.15, 40.6 Addison v Cox (1874) 30 LT 253 .… 26.15 Adelaide Bank Ltd v Gibbs [1995] ANZ ConvR 615 .… 40.1, 40.3 Adelaide Building Co Pty Ltd (in liq) v ABC Investments Pty Ltd (1990) 8 ACLC 445 .… 21.1 Adelaide Capital Corporation v Integrated Transportation Financial Incorporated (1994) 111 DLR (4th) 493; 6 PPSAC (2d) 267 .… 5.19 Adelphi Hotel (Brighton) Ltd, Re; District Bank v Adelphi Hotel (Brighton) Ltd [1953] 2 All ER 498; [1953] 1 WLR 955 .… 3.21 Adler v Ferguson [1962] VR 129 .… 21.15 Adriatic Development Ltd v Canada Trust Mortgage Co (1982) 135 DLR (3d) 549 .… 36.3 Aetna Life Insurance Co v Middleport (1887) 124 US 534 .… 42.18 Affinity International Inc v Alliance International Inc (1994) 8 PPSAC (2d) 73; 96 Man R (2d) 200 .… 5.35, 5.38

AG(CQ) Pty Ltd as Trustee for AG(CQ) Family Trust v A & T Promotions Pty Ltd (as trustee for the Toowoomba Unit Trust) [2011] Qd R 306 .… 24.25, 28.15 AG (NSW) v Della Lucia (1983) 1 Butterworths NSW Conveyancing Casenotes [92208] .… 3.40 AG v Cox; Pearce v AG (1850) 3 HLC 240; 10 ER 93 .… 35.2 AG v Crofts (1788) 4 Bro Parl Cas 136; 2 ER 91 .… 1.25 AG v Higham (1843) 2 Y & CCC 634; 63 ER 284 .… 11.14 AG v McMillan and Lockwood Ltd [1991] 1 NZLR 51 .… 24.3 AG v Oldham Corp [1936] 2 All ER 1022 .… 11.46 AGC (Advances) Ltd v Tweed Canal Estates Pty Ltd (1988) 4 BPR 9404 .… 20.15 AGC (Advances) Ltd v West (1984) 5 NSWLR 301 .… 30.2, 40.21 AGC (Advances) Ltd v West (1986) 5 NSWLR 504 .… 40.2 AG-Chem Farm Services Inc v Coberly 733 P (2d) 15 (1987) (NM) .… 3.8 Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson [1991] Ch 547; [1992] 4 All ER 385 .… 24.20, 32.35, 32.40 Aglionby v Cohen [1955] 1 QB 558 .… 19.19, 19.20 Agnew v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2001] 2 AC 710 .… 2.20, 5.118, 8.12, 8.13 Agra Bank Ltd v Barry (1874) LR 7 HL 135 .… 3.31, 24.14, 24.37, 24.39, 27.12 Agricullo v Yorkshire Housing Ltd [2010] L&TR 9 .… 40.2 Agricultural Credit Corporation of Saskatchewan v Pettyjohn (1991) 79 DLR (4th) 22; 1 PPSAC (2d) 273 .… 5.29, 5.82 Ahmed v Kendrick (1987) 56 P & CR 120 .… 3.49 AIB Finance Ltd v Debtors [1997] 4 All ER 677 .… 20.52 AIB Finance Ltd v Debtors [1998] 2 All ER 929 .… 16.1, 19.21

AIB Group (UK) plc v Hennelly Properties Ltd [2000] EGCS 63 .… 3.5 AIB Group (UK) plc v Martin [2002] 1 WLR 94; [2002] 1 All ER 353 .… 3.7, 3.13, 30.7 AIDC v Co-operative Farmers & Graziers Direct Meat Supply Ltd [1978] VR 633 .… 18.14, 18.19, 18.26, 20.6 Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564 .… 5.42 Ainsworth v Roe (1850) 14 Jur 874 .… 40.23 Ainsworth v Wilding [1905] 1 Ch 435 .… 39.35 Airservices Australia v Ferrier (1996) 185 CLR 483 .… 32.54 Akron Tyre Co Pty Ltd v Kittson (1951) 82 CLR 477 .… 6.21 Al Wazir v Islamic Press Agency Inc [2001] All ER (D) 437; [2002] 1 Ll Rep 210 .… 39.42 Alabama, New Orleans etc Rly Co, Re [1891] 1 Ch 213 .… 8.2 Alan Estates Ltd v WG Stores Ltd [1982] Ch 511 .… 3.5 Albemarle Supply Co Ltd v Hind & Co [1928] 1 KB 307 .… 2.19, 2.32, 2.37 Albert Del Fabbro Pty Ltd v Wilckens & Burnside Pty Ltd [1970] SASR 121 .… 7.10 Albert v Grosvenor Investment Co (1867) LR 3 QB 123 .… 16.7 Albion Insurance Co Ltd v Government Insurance Office of New South Wales (1969) 121 CLR 342 .… 30.2 Alcock, Re; Prescott v Phipps (1883) 23 Ch D 372 .… 32.36, 39.59 Alcoota Aboriginal Corp v Gray (2002) 170 FLR 29 .… 1.7 Alden v Foster (1842) 5 Beav 592; 49 ER 708 .… 22.29 Alderson v Elgey (1884) 26 Ch D 567 .… 32.56 Alderson v White (1858) 2 De G & J 97; 44 ER 924 .… 1.27, 1.28, 1.29, 3.6, 32.87 Alderton v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd (1993) 41 FCR 435 .… 13.28 Aldrich v Cooper (1803) 8 Ves 382; 32 ER 402 .… 30.2, 30.9, 30.9, 30.10,

30.12, 30.13, 35.11 Aldridge v Forbes (1840) 9 LJ Ch 37 .… 30.13 Aldworth v Robinson (1840) 2 Beav 287; 48 ER 1191 .… 22.22, 31.4, 33.27 Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil GB Ltd [1983] 1 WLR 87; [1983] 1 All ER 944 .… 1.29, 13.30, 13.39, 32.9, 32.11, 32.18, 32.19 Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil GB Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 173; [1985] 1 All ER 303 .… 1.29, 32.9, 32.11, 32.13, 32.16, 32.18 Alexander v Simms (1854) 18 Beav 80 .… 9.15 Alexander v Simms (1854) 5 De GM & G 57; 43 ER 791 .… 9.15 Alexanders Securities Ltd (No 2), Re [1983] 1 Qd R 597; (1983) 8 ACLR 434 .… 23.1 Alexandre v New Zealand Breweries Ltd [1974] 1 NZLR 497 .… 20.21, 20.22, 20.31 Alexsen v O’Brien (1949) 80 CLR 219 .… 1.41 Alison, Re; Johnson v Mounsey (1879) 11 Ch D284 .… 22.38 Al-Kandari v J R Brown & Co [1987] QB 514; [1987] 2 All ER 302 .… 32.74 Allcard v Skinner (1887) 36 Ch D 145 .… 13.22, 13.23, 13.24 Allen v Allen (1862) 30 Beav 395 .… 29.3 Allen v Edwards (1873) 42 LJ Ch 455 .… 22.37 Allen v Knight (1847) 11 Jur 527; 16 LJ Ch 370 .… 24.43 Allen v Knight (1847) 5 Hare 272; 67 ER 915 .… 24.45 Allenborough and Inland Revenue Commissioners, Re (1855) 11 Ex 461; 156 ER 912 .… 1.7 Allenby v Dalton (1827) 5 LJ KB (OS) 312 .… 1.25 Allfox Building Pty Ltd v Bank of Melbourne (1992) NSW ConvR 55-634 . … 20.21, 20.38 Alliance Acceptance Co Ltd v Ellison (1986) 5 NSWLR 102 .… 1.18, 12.18

Alliance Acceptance Co Ltd v Graham (1974) 10 SASR 220 .… 20.22 Alliance and Leicester v Slayford [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 1 .… 16.7, 17.12 Alliance Bank v Broom (1864) 2 Dr & Sim 289; 62 ER 631 .… 3.45 Alliance Bank Ltd v Irving (1865) 4 SCR (NSW) (Eq) 17 .… 18.23 Alliance Perpetual Building Societyv Belrum Investments Ltd [1957] 1 All ER 635; [1957] 1 WLR 720 .… 21.1 Allie v Katah [1963] 1 WLR 202 .… 29.3 Allied Glass Manufacturers Ltd, Re (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 409 .… 2.49, 2.51, 11.35 Allied Mills Ltd v Robinson (1981) 2 BPR 9353 .… 4.18 Allison v Clayhills (1907) 97 LT 709 .… 42.2 Allsop v Marshall (1942) 59 WN (NSW) 159 .… 12.21 Allsop v Marshall (1946) 46 SR (NSW) 274 .… 1.7 Alma Hill Constructions Pty Ltd v Onal (2007) 16 VR 190 .… 26.2 Alston v Mineard (1906) 51 Sol Jo 132 .… 16.33 Altarama Ltd v Camp (1980) 5 ACLR 513 .… 1.51, 1.48, 20.36, 32.44 Alton Corp, Re [1985] BCLC 27 .… 3.40 Alton v Harrison (1869) 4 Ch App 622 .… 13.6 Aluminium Industrie Vaassen BV v Romalpa Aluminium Ltd [1976] 2 All ER 552; [1976] 1 WLR 676 .… 1.5, 1.49 Amalgamated Investment & Property Co Ltd, Re [1985] Ch 349 .… 41.3 Amalgamated Investment & Property Co Ltd v John Walker & Sons Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 164 .… 37.5 Amalgamated Investment & Property Co Ltd v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd [1982] QB 84 .… 1.4, 3.7 Aman v Southern Rly Co [1926] 1 KB 59 .… 36.14 Ambir Pty Ltd v Paspalis Hotel Investments Pty Ltd (2003) 174 FLR 483 .… 2.32, 7.10

AMC Commercial Cleaning (NSW) Pty Ltd v Coade [2013] NSWSC 192; 16 BPR 28,584 .… 2.48, 2.50 American Express International Banking Corp v Hurley [1985] 3 All ER 564 .… 18.5, 19.36, 20.22 Ames v Trustees of Birkenhead Docks (1855) 20 Beav 332; 52 ER 630 .… 24.49 AMEV Finance Ltd v Auscott Ltd (1988) 5 BPR 11386 .… 4.32, 10.14 Amex-Protein Dev Corp, Re (1974) 504 F 2d 1056 .… 5.36, 5.38 Amner, Re; Ex parte Hunt (1840) 1 Mont D & De G 139 .… 3.42 Amoco Australia Pty Ltd v Rocca Bros Motor Engineering Co Pty Ltd (1973) 133 CLR 288 .… 32.9, 32.12 Ancaster v Mayer (1785) 1 Bro CC 454; 28 ER 1237 .… 3.13 Anchor Trust Co v Bell [1926] Ch 805 .… 19.21 Andar Transport Pty Ltd v Brambles Ltd (2004) 78 ALJR 907 .… 3.7, 42.12 Anderson, Re; Ex parte Alexander (1927) 28 SR (NSW) 296 .… 3.13, 11.15 Anderson, Re; Ex parte New Zealand Official Assignee [1911] 1 KB 896 .… 26.4 Anderson v Liddell (1968) 117 CLR 36 .… 24.49, 24.51 Anderson v Lockhart [1991] Qd R 501 .… 20.8 Anderson v Pignet (1872) 8 Ch App 180 .… 32.62 Anderson v Radcliffe (1858) EB & E 806; 120 ER 710 .… 42.2 Andersons Seeds Ltd, Re [1971] 2 NSWLR 120 .… 39.42, 39.43 Andrew Garrett Wine Resorts Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd (2004) 206 ALR 69 .… 19.23 Andrews v ANZ Banking Group Ltd [2012] HCA 30 .… 39.55 Andrews v City Permanent Benefit Building Society (1881) 44 LT 641 .… 31.9 Andrews v Taylor (1869) 6 WW & a’B (L) 223 .… 27.10

Anfield (UK) Ltd v Bank of Scotland plc [2010] EWHC 2374 (Ch); [2010] All ER (D) 119 .… 42.18 Angelkovski v Trans-Canada Foods Ltd (1986) 6 PPSAC 1 .… 5.136 Anglo-Canadian Lands, Re (1912) Ltd [1918] 2 Ch 287 .… 8.5 Anglo-Maltese Hydraulic Dock Co, Re (1885) 54 LJ Ch 730 .… 2.39 Ankar Pty Ltd v National Westminster Finance (Aust) Pty Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 549 .… 3.7, 42.12 Annangel Glory Compania Naviera SA v M Golodetz Ltd [1988] 1 Ll Rep 45 .… 11.39 Anon (1680) 2 Freeman Ch 59; 22 ER 1058;2 Eq Cas Abr 594; 22 ER 499 . … 33.16 Anon (1707) 1 Salk 155; 91 ER 143 .… 39.19 Anon (1719) Bunb 41; 145 ER 588 .… 39.53 Anon (1740) Barn Ch 221 .… 22.30 Anon (1813) 4 Taunt 876; 128 ER 577 .… 3.13 Anon (1844) 1 Coll 273; 63 ER 416 .… 22.47 Ansett Australia Ground Staff Superannuation Plan Pty Ltd v Ansett Australia (2002) 174 FLR 1 .… 1.48 Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Comptroller of Stamps [1985] VR70 .… 3.5 Anstey v Newman (1870) 39 LJ Ch 769 .… 30.13 Anthony, Re; Anthony v Anthony [1892] 1 Ch 450 .… 29.2 Antrim County Land Building and Investment Co v Stewart [1904] 2 IR 357 .… 19.14 ANZ v Evans (1992) 2 Qd R 230 .… 20.45 ANZ Banking Group (NZ) Ltd v Gibson [1981] 2 NZLR 513 .… 3.17, 17.7, 17.9, 19.15, 20.21, 40.2 ANZ Banking Group Ltd and Devine Holdings Pty Ltd and Edwards, Re [1991] ACL Rep 295 QLD 11 .… 32.21, 33.2

ANZ Banking Group Ltd v Pearce [2004] VSC 49 .… 19.22 ANZ Banking Group Ltd v Scott (1993) 6 BPR 13, 217 .… 11.6 ANZ Banking Group Ltd v Wright (SC (NSW), Bryson J, 9 September 1998) .… 19.21 ANZ Executors and Trustee Co Ltd v Qintex Australia Ltd (1990) 2 ACSR 676; 8 ACLC 980 .… 11.33 ANZ Executors and Trustees Ltd v Humes Ltd [1990] VR 615 .… 8.1 Apostolou Corporation Aust Pty Ltd v VA Corporation of Aust Pty Ltd (2010) 77 ACSR 84 .… 20.32 Appeal of Copeland (1976) 531 F 2d 1195 .… 5.41, 5.44 Apple Fields Ltd v Damesh Holdings Ltd [2004] 1 NZLR 721 .… 20.40 Appleby v Duke (1842) 1 Hare 303; 66 ER 1047 .… 33.27 Appleby v Myers (1867) LR 2 CP 651 .… 5.94 Arcade Hotel Pty Ltd, Re [1962] VR 274 .… 25.8 Arcadi v Whittem (1992) 59 SASR 515 .… 4.11, 4.18, 4.21 Archer’s Estate, Re [1914] 1 IR 285 .… 30.12 Arden v Arden (1885) 29 Ch D 702 .… 26.4, 26.11, 26.18, 26.21 Argyle Developments Pty Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1994) 4 Tas R 172 .… 18.2 Armagh Shoes Ltd, Re [1982] NI 59 .… 8.14 Armitage, Re; Ex parte Good (1877) 5 Ch D 46 .… 35.11 Armor Coatings (Marketing) Pty Ltd v General Credits (Finance) Pty Ltd (1978) 17 SASR 259 .… 3.33, 20.36, 20.37 Armour v Thyssen Edelstahlwerke AG [1991] 2 AC 339 .… 1.49, Armstrong v Dixon [1911] 1 IR 435 .… 3.32, 22.42 Armstrong v Robinson (1882) 2 VLR (L) 17698 .… 32.41, 32.47 Armstrong v Storer (1852) 14 Beav 535; 51 ER 391 .… 40.20 Arnal v Arnal (1969) 6 DLR (3d) 245 .… 1.29

Arnick Holdings & Ankar Pty Ltd v Australian Bank Ltd (SC (NSW), Bryson J, 4 December 1987, unreported) .… 3.40 Arnold v Bainbrigge (1860) 2 De GF & J 92; 45 ER 557 .… 16.7 Arnold v Garner (1847) 2 Ph 231; 41 ER 931 .… 19.41 Arnold v State Bank of South Australia (1992) 38 FCR 484 .… 4.19 Arnold & Co Ltd, Re [1984] BCLC 535 .… 11.43 Arnot v Peterson (1912) 2 WWR 1 (Alberta) .… 4.29 Arthur v Higgs (1856) Seton (7th ed) 1887 .… 22.17 Arthur D Llittle Ltd v Ableco Finance LLC [2003] CH 217 .… 8.13 Artistic Builders Pty Ltd v Elliot & Tuthil (Mortgages) Pty Ltd (2002) 10 BPR 19, 565 .… 18.13 Ascough v Johnson (1688) 2 Vern 66; 23 ER 652 .… 39.19 Ashborder BV v Green Gas Power Ltd [2005] BCC 634 .… 5.104 Ashburton (Lord) v Nocton [1915] 1 Ch 274 .… 12.7 Ashbury Railway Carriage & Iron Co v Riche (1875) LR 7 HL 653 .… 11.33 Ashenhurst v James (1745) 3 Atk 270; 26 ER 958 .… 14.2, 39.53 Ashley Guarantee plc v Zacaria [1993] 1 WLR 62; [1993] 1 All ER 254 .… 1.51, 3.14, 19.15, 19.23 Ashpurton Estates Ltd, Re [1983] Ch 110 .… 11.43 Ashton v Corrigan (1871) LR 13 Eq 76 .… 1.33 Ashton v Dalton (1846) 2 Coll 565; 63 ER 863 .… 3.42 Ashwell v Staunton (1861) 30 Beav 52; 54 ER 808 .… 39.42, 39.57 Ashworth v Lord (1887) 36 Ch D 545 .… 39.40, 39.44, 40.10 Ashworth v Mounsey (1853) 9 Exch 175; 156 ER 75 .… 20.6 Asklepeion Restaurants v 791259 Ontario Ltd (1996) 11 PPSAC (2d) 320 . … 5.29, 5.71, 5.72 Askrigg Pty Ltd v Student Guild of the Curtin University of Technology

(1989) 18 NSWLR 738 .… 6.16 Asphaltic Wood Pavement Co, Re (1883) 30 Ch D 216 .… 2.52 ASRS Establishment Ltd, Re [2000] 2 BCLC 631 .… 1.29, 8.13 Assets Co Ltd v Mere Roihi [1905] AC 176 .… 4.15, 28.2 ASIC v Cyclone Magnetic Engines (2009) 224 FLR 50 .… 5.25 Associated Alloys Pty Ltd v ACN 001 452106 Pty Ltd (2000) 202 CLR 588 . … 1.48, 1.49, 5.20, 8.9 Associated Securities Ltd v Adorjany [1964–5] NSWR 822 .… 3.23, 4.23, 4.25, 19.5 Associated Securities Ltd v Perry [1978] Qd R 13 .… 32.65 Assunzione (The) [1954] P 140 .… 1.43 Assured Funding Pty Ltd v Gentzsch (2007) 247 LSJS 447; [2007] SASC 101 .… 19.8 Astley v Miller (1827) 1 Sim 298; 57 ER 588 .… 36.6 Aston v Aston (1750) 1 Ves Sen 264; 27 ER 1021 .… 39.47 Astor Properties Ltd v Tunbridge Wells Equitable Friendly Society [1936] 1 All ER 531 .… 1.41, 3.45 Astral Communications Inc v 825536 Ontario Inc (Trustee of) (2000) 46 OR (3d) 477 .… 5.39 ATG Aerospace, Inc v High-Line Aviation Ltd 149 BR 730 at 737 (1992) . … 5.23 Athill, Re; Athill v Athill (1880) 16 Ch D 211 .… 29.3, 30.2 Atkin’s Estate, Re [1894] 1 Ir R 225 .… 2.37 Atkins v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1986) 4 ACLR 125 .… 8.11 Atkins v National Australia Bank (SC (NSW), CA, 5 August 1994, unreported) .… 13.16, 13.30 Atkinson v Lohre (1879) 4 App Cas 755 .… 2.17 Atkinson, Re (1852) 2 De GM & G 140; 42 ER 824 .… 26.4

Atlantic 3-Financial (Aust) Pty Ltd v Deskhurst Pty Ltd [2005] 1 Qd R 1 .… 15.1, 15.3 Atlantic Computer Systems plc, Re [1992] Ch 505; [1992] 1 All ER 476 .… 8.14 Atlas Express Ltd v Kafco (Importers and Distributors) Ltd [1989] QB 833 . … 13.38 Atlas Industries Ltd v Federal Business Development Bank (1983) 3 PPSAC 39 .… 5.38, 5.39 Atterbury v Jarvie (1857) 2 H & N 113; 157 ER 47 .… 1.51 Atterbury v Wallis (1856) 2 Jur NS 343; 44 ER 465 .… 42.5 Attorney-General (NSW) v Hill and Halls Ltd (1923) 32 CLR 112 .… 27.15 Auckland Milk Co Ltd v Levy [1934] GLR 798 .… 5.43 Austen v Dodwell Executors (1729) 1 Eq Cas Abr 318 pl 9; 21 ER 1073 .… 32.41, 32.49 Austin Construction Co (Australia) Ltd v Becketts Holdings Pty Ltd (1958) 75 WN (NSW) 444 .… 12.9, 12.21 Austin, Re; Ex parte Sheffield (1879) 10 Ch D 434 .… 22.9 Austin v Royal (1999) 47 NSWLR 27 .… 40.26, 42.18 Austin-Fell v Austin-Fell [1990] Fam 172 .… 7.5 Austral Mining Construction Pty Ltd, Re [1993] 1 Qd R 358 .… 8.1 Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd v Austarama Television Pty Ltd [1972] 2 NSWLR 467 .… 13.42 Australia and New Zealand Banking Group v Barns (1994) 6 BPR 13,739; (1994) 13 ACSR 592; [1995] ANZ ConvR 123 .… 1.58 Australia and New Zealand Bank Ltd v Hathaway [1957] QWN 49 .… 10.8, 19.6, 19.7, 19.23 Australia and New Zealand Bank Ltd v Magarditch (1 April 1997, unreported) .… 30.9 Australia and New Zealand Bank Ltd v Sinclair [1968] 2 NSWR 26 .…

12.13 Australia and New Zealand Bank Ltd v Squires (SC (NSW), Lusher J, 23 August 1982; CA, 6 December 1982, unreported) .… 1.51 Australia and New Zealand Bank Ltd v Strelitz [1964] NSWR 401 .… 12.11 Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Barns (1994) 13 ACSR 592 .… 4.12, 4.18 Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Bangadilly Pastoral Co Pty Ltd (1978) 139 CLR 195 .… 20.21, 20.22, 20.23, 20.30, 20.33, 20.40 Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Comer (1993) 5 BPR 11,748 .… 3.8, 3.14, 4.25, 10.8, 10.9, 19.5, 19.6, 19.7, 19.14, 19.17, 19.22 Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Constikidis (SC (Vic), Hansen J, 22 December 1994, unreported) .… 11.10, 35.8 Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Curlett, Cannon and Galbell Pty Ltd [1992] 2 VR 647 .… 1.11, 6.16 Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Greig (1980) 1 NSWLR 112; 47 FLR 387 .… 24.50, 32.1, 39.15 Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Lefkovic (24 June 1992, Tadgell J, unreported) .… 13.31 Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v National Mutual Life Nominees Ltd (1977) 137 CLR 252 .… 22.3, 25.13 Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Petrik [1996] 2 VR 638 .… 13.40 Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Widin (1990) 26 FCR 21, 102 ALR 289 .… 1.35 Australian Auxiliary Steam Clipper Co v Mounsey (1858) 4 K & J 733; 70 ER 304 .… 11.7 Australian Barter Currency Exchange Pty Ltd v Uniting Church of NSW Trust Association Limited [2009] NSWSC 607 .… 20.38 Australian Cherry Exports Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1996) 39 NSWLR 337 .… 9.12

Australian Co-operative Development Society Ltd, Ex parte [1978] Qd R 395 .… 20.43, 20.45 Australian Deposit and Mortgage Bank v Lord [1876] 2 VLR (L) 31 .… 17.5 Australian Energy Regulator v Stanwell Corporation Ltd (2011) 197 FCR 429 .… 5.121 Australian Express Pty Ltd v Pejovic [1963] NSWR 954 .… 12.11 Australian Guarantee Corp Ltd v Balding (1930) 43 CLR 140 .… 6.20 Australian Guarantee Corp Ltd v De Jager [1984] VR 483 .… 4.19, 4.20, 40.9 Australian Guarantee Corp Ltd v Western Underwriters Insurance Ltd [1988] 2 Qd R 119 .… 2.27 Australian Hi-Fi Publications Pty Ltd v Gehl [1979] 2 NSWLR 618 .… 4.14 Australian Industrial Relations Commission; Ex parte Australian Transport Officers Federation (1990) 171 CLR 216 .… 5.25 Australian Mid-Eastern Club Ltd v Yassim (1989) 1 ACSR 399 .… 32.41 Australian Mutual Provident Society v Allan (1978) 52 ALJR 407 .… 1.28 Australian Mutual Provident Society v Chaplin (1978) 18 ALR 385 .… 1.28 Australian Mutual Provident Society v GeoMyers & Co Ltd (1931) 47 CLR 65 .… 8.19, 18.5 Australian Provincial Assurance Co Ltd v Coroneo (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 700 .… 3.26 Australian Receivables Ltd v Tekitu Pty Ltd (2012) 260 FLR 243; [2012] NSWSC 170 .… 2.50 Australian Regional Credit Pty Ltd v Mula [2009] NSWSC 325;14 BPR 26,779 .… 13.29 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v John McKenny Consulting Pty Ltd (2002) 43 ASCR 458 .… 2.52, 24.29 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Karl Suleman Enterprises Pty Ltd (2003) 45 ACSR 401 .… 8.1

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Lawrenson Light Metal Die Casting Pty Ltd (1999) 158 FLR 307; 33 ACSR 288 .… 2.9 Automated Bookbinding Services, Re 471 F 2d 546 (4th Cir 1972) .… 5.87 Automatic Bottle Makers Ltd, Re [1926] Ch 412 .… 8.18, 8.21 Automobile Association (Canterbury) Inc v Australasian Secured Deposits Ltd [1973] 1 NZLR 417 .… 1.29 Avco Financial Services Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1989) 17 NSWLR 679 .… 1.34, 1.39, 2.7, 4.4, 4.23, 4.25, 20.43, 20.45, 20.45, 37.4 Avco Financial Services Ltd v Fishman [1993] 1 VR 90; (1992) V ConvR 54-442 .… 24.25, 28.15, 28.16 Avco Financial Services Ltd v White [1977] VR 561 .… 1.34, 28.15, 42.3 Averall v Wade; Shalcross v Dixon (1838) 7 LJ NS Ch 180 .… 30.5, 30.6, 30.12 Avon County Council v Howlett [1983] 1 All ER 1073 .… 32.40 Avon Finance Co Ltd v Bridger [1985] 2 All ER 281 .… 13.29, 13.41 AWA Ltd v Exicom Australia Pty Ltd (1990) 19 NSWLR 705 .… 17.7 Ayers v South Australian Banking Co (1871) LR 3 PC 548 .… 1.11, 3.55 Aylward v Lewis [1891] 2 Ch 81 .… 22.46 Ayoub Pty Ltd v Euphoric Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 457 .… 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 42.12 Ayres v South Australian Banking Co (1871) LR 3 PC 548 .… 3.55 B B & B Budget Forklifts Pty Ltd v CBFC Ltd (2008) 216 FLR 294 .… 5.79 B & S Contracts & Design Ltd v Victor Green Publications Ltd [1984] ICR 419 .… 13.38 B Johnson & Co (Builders) Ltd, Re [1955] Ch 634; [1955] 2 All ER 775 .… 18.5 B S Lyle Ltd v Rosher [1959] 1 WLR 8; [1958] 3 All ER 597 .… 26.1

Bacchus Marsh Brick and Pottery Co Ltd (in liq) v Federal Building Society (in liq) (1895) 22 VLR 181 .… 19.4 Bache & Co (London) Ltd v Banque Vernes et Commerciale de Paris SA [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 437 .… 17.7 Bacon v Bacon (1639) Tot 133 .… 32.12 Backhouse v Backhouse [1978] 1 WLR 243; [1978] 1 ALL ER 1158 .… 13.12 Backhouse v Charlton (1878) 8 Ch D 444 .… 3.36 Badeley v Consolidated Bank (1888) 38 Ch D 238 .… 6.22, 20.47 Baden v Sociéte Générale pour Favoriser le Développement du Commerce et de l’Industrie en France SA [1992] 4 All ER 161; [1993] 1 WLR 509 .… 5.109, 24.20 Badger State Agri-Credit & Realty Inc v Lubahn 365 NW (2d) 616 (1985) (Wis) .… 3.8 Baglioni v Cavalli (1901) 49 WR 236 .… 30.12 Bagnall v Villar (1879) 12 Ch D 812 .… 12.4, 12.5, 12.9, 39.16 Bagot v Oughton (1717) 1 P Wms 347; 24 ER 420 .… 30.7 Bahr v Nicolay (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 604 .… 4.11, 4.12, 4.15, 19.40 Bailes v Sunderland Equitable Industrial Society (1886) 55 LT 808 .… 32.28, 32.33 Bailey v Barnes [1894] 1 Ch 25 .… 20.4, 20.20, 24.14, 24.29 Bailey v NSW Medical Defence Union Ltd [1995] HCA 28: 184 CLR 399; 132 ALR 1 .… 6.3 Bailey v Richardson (1852) 9 Hare 734; 68 ER 711 .… 24.14, 24.21, 36.6 Baille v M’Kewan (1865) 35 Beav 177; 55 ER 862 .… 24.8 Baillie v Irwin [1897] 2 IR 614 .… 16.34 Bainbridge, Re; Ex parte Fletcher (1878) 8 Ch D 218 .… 6.18 Bainbrigge v Blair (1841) 3 Beav 421; 49 ER 165 .… 18.20

Bainbrigge v Browne (1881) 18 Ch D 188 .… 13.2, 13.22 Baker v Biddle (1923) 33 CLR 188 3 .… 32.11, 32.12 Baker v Bradley (1855) 7 De GM & G 597; 44 ER 233 .… 13.23 Baker v Gray (1875) 1 Ch D 491 .… 31.9 Baker v Henderson (1830) 4 Sim 27; 58 ER 11 .… 2.35, 2.43 Baker, Re; Ex parte Bisdee (1840) 1 Mont D & De G 333 .… 3.42 Baker’s Creek Consolidated Gold Mining Co v Hack (1894) 15 LR (NSW) Eq 207 .… 28.7 Bakker v Chambri Pty Ltd (1986) 4 BPR 9234 .… 22.14, 22.15, 22.25, 33.23, 39.50 Balanced Securities Ltd v Bianco [2010] VSC 201; (2010) 27 VR 599 .… 12.18 Balch v Symes (1823) Turn & Russ 87; 37 ER 1028 .… 2.43 Baldwin v Belcher; Re Cornwall (1842) 3 Dr & War 173 .… 30.9, 30.14 Baldwin v Cawthorne (1812) 19 Ves 166; 34 ER 480 .… 1.26 Balen and Shepherd’s Contract, Re [1924] 2 Ch 365 .… 14.8 Balfe v Lord (1842) 2 Dr & War 480 .… 2.7, 33.7 Ball, Re; Commercial Banking Co of Sydney Ltd v Official Receiver (1980) 31 ALR 16 .… 23.10 Ballabil Holdings Pty Ltd v Hospital Products Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 155 .… 18.23 Bamford, Re; Ex parte Games (1879) 12 Ch D 314 .… 13.6 Bancorp Leasing and Financial Corp v Stadeli Pump & Construction Inc 303 Or 545, 739 P 2d 548 (1987) .… 5.93 Bando Trading Co v Registrar of Titles [1975] VR 353 .… 4.5, 14.16, 20.31 Banister v Islington London Borough Council (1972) 71 LGR 239 .… 19.39 Bank of Adelaide v Lorden (1970) 127 CLR 185 .… 35.10 Bank of Africa v Salisbury Gold Mining Co [1892] AC 281 .… 2.19

Bank of Baroda v Panessar [1987] Ch 335; [1986] 3 All ER 751 .… 17.9, 18.7 Bank of Baroda v Shah [1988] 3 All ER 24 .… 13.18 Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd v Akindele [2001] Ch 437 .… 5.109 Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (No 8), Re [1998] AC 214 . … 6.20, 8.11 Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v Aboody [1990] 1 QB 923; [1992] 4 All ER 955 .… 13.17, 13.18, 13.20, 13.22, 13.24, 13.25 Bank of Cyprus (London) Ltd v Gill [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 508 .… 20.23, 20.31 Bank of Cyprus (London) Ltd v Gill [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 51 .… 20.28 Bank of Hindustan, China and Japan Ltd, Re; Ex parte Smith (1867) LR 3 Ch App 125 .… 2.49 Bank of India v Transcontinental Commodity Merchants Ltd [1982] 1 Ll Rep 506 .… 3.14 Bank of Ireland v Beresford 6 Dow PC 233; 3 ER 1456 .… 35.8 Bank of Ireland v Feeney [1930] IR 457 .… 19.14 Bank of Ireland Finance Ltd v Daly Ltd [1978] IR 79 .… 2.13 Bank of Montreal v Innovation Credit Union [2010] SCC 47; [2010] 3 SCR 3 .… 5.16, 5.26, 5.41, 5.72, 24.26 Bank of Montreal v iTrade Finance Inc (2009) 17 PPSASC (3d) 250 .… 5.15 Bank of Montreal v iTrade Finance Inc [2011] 2 SCR 360 .… 5.26 Bank of Montreal v Pachrite Inc (2006) 11 PPSAC (3d) 67 .… 5.25 Bank of Montreal v Stuart [1911] AC 120 .… 13.17, 13.20, 13.25 Bank of New South Wales v Adams [1982] 2 NSWLR 659 .… 20.46 Bank of New South Wales v Brown (1983) 151 CLR 514 .… 39.50, 39.51 Bank of New South Wales v Browne (1906) 23 WN (NSW) 24 .… 22.14

Bank of New South Wales v Cadea (No 18) Pty Ltd (1995) 7 BPR 14,301 . … 3.25 Bank of New South Wales v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd [1969] VR 556 .… 30.9 Bank of New South Wales v Hartman (1955) 72 WN (NSW) 382 .… 12.3, 12.18, 19.21 Bank of New South Wales v O’Connor (1889) 14 App Cas 273 .… 3.32, 3.36, 3.38, 22.17, 32.41, 32.82, 34.5, 40.1 Bank of New South Wales v Palmer (1881) 2 LR (NSW) (L) 125 .… 19.5 Bank of New South Wales v Rogers (1921) 65 CLR 42 .… 13.24, 13.29 Bank of New South Wales v Tyson (1871) 11 SCR (NSW) (Eq) 1 .… 20.38 Bank of New Zealand v Assets Realisation Board (1905) 7 GLR 483 .… 1.4 Bank of New Zealand v Development Finance Corp of New Zealand [1988] 1 NZLR 495 .… 4.35, 25.15, 25.16 Bank of New Zealand v Farrier-Waimak Ltd [1964] NZLR 9 .… 3.33 Bank of Nova Scotia v Barnard (1984) 9 DLR (4th) 575 .… 20.21 Bank of Nova Scotia v Royal Bank of Canada (1987) 8 PPSAC 17; 42 DLR (4th) 636 .… 5.42, 5.44, 5.45 Bank of Nova Scotia Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) [The Good Luck] [1992] 1 AC 233 .… 9.16 Bank of Scotland v Macleod [1914] AC 311 .… 6.23 Bank of South Australia v Ferguson (1995) 66 SASR 77 .… 4.11, 4.19 Bank of Victoria v Looker (1896) 21 VLR 704 .… 36.13 Bank of Victoria v Mueller [1925] VLR 642 .… 13.25, 13.31 Bank of Western Australia v Abdul [2012] VSC 222 .… 17.7, 18.5 Bank of Western Australia v Connell (1996) 16 WAR 483 .… 7.4, 24.51 Bankers Trust Co v Galadari [1987] QB 222; [1986] 3 All ER 794 .… 24.49 Banks v Whittall (1847) 1 De M & G 536; 63 ER 1182 .… 1.40

Banner v Berridge (1881) 18 Ch D 254 .… 10.12, 16.30, 20.43, 20.44, 30.2, 32.36, 39.59, 40.17 Bannerman Brydone Folster & Co v Murray [1972] NZLR 411 .… 32.11 Banning v Wright [1972] 1 WLR 972 .… 35.1 Banning Holdings Pty Ltd v Webster [2001] WASC 12 .… 19.34 Banque Financiere de la Cite v Purc (Battersea) Ltd [1999] 1 AC 221 .… 42.18, 42.19 Baratt v Gough-Thomas [1951] 2 All ER 48 .… 32.41 Barba v Gas and Fuel Corp of Victoria (1976) 136 CLR 120 .… 4.23, 28.6 Barber v Jeckells [1893] WN 91 .… 22.37 Barcelo v Electrolytic Zinc Co of Australasia Ltd (1932) 48 CLR 391 .… 1.7, 5.120, 8.11, 8.13 Barclay v Owen (1889) 60 LT 220 .… 16.33 Barclay v Prospect Mortgages Ltd [1974] 2 All ER 672; [1974] 1 WLR 837 . … 6.17 Barclay & Co Ltd v Poole [1907] 2 Ch 284 .… 9.23 Barclays Bank Ltd v Beck [1952] 2 QB 47; [1952] 1 All ER 549 .… 36.13, 36.16 Barclays Bank Ltd v Bird [1954] Ch 274; [1954] 1 All ER 449 .… 3.36, 10.9, 19.11, 19.14 Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd [1970] AC 567 .… 11.36 Barclays Bank Ltd v Stasek [1957] Ch 28; [1956] 3 All ER 439 .… 12.30 Barclays Bank Ltd v Taylor [1973] Ch 63; [1972] 2 All ER 752 .… 1.33 Barclays Bank Ltd v Taylor [1974] Ch 137 .… 3.43 Barclays Bank Ltd v TOSG Trust Fund Ltd [1984] 1 All ER 628 .… 42.16 Barclays Bank Ltd v W J Simms Son & Cooke (Southern) Ltd [1980] QB 677; [1979] 3 All ER 522 .… 32.40 Barclays Bank plc, Re [2012] NSWSC 1095 .… 5.1, 5.115

Barclays Bank plc v Estates and Commercial Ltd [1997] 1 WLR 415 .… 2.10 Barclays Bank plc v O’Brien [1993] QB 109; [1992] 4 All ER 983 .… 11.2 Barclays Bank plc v O’Brien [1994] 1 AC 180; [1993] 4 All ER 417 .… 13.16, 13.17, 13.18, 13.20, 13.21, 13.22, 13.24, 13.25, 13.26, 13.28, 13.29, 13.31, 13.33, 24.1 Barclays Bank plc v Tennet [1984] CA transcript 242 .… 19.23 Barclays Bank plc v Walters (1988) The Times, 20 October, CA .… 16.29 Barclays Bank plc v Willowbrook International Ltd [1986] BCLC 45 .… 6.14 Barclays Bank plc v Zaroovabli [1997] Ch 321; [1997] 2 All ER 19 .… 12.19 Baring v Nash (1813) 1 V & B 551; 35 ER 214 .… 11.6 Baring Bros & Co Ltd v Hovermarine Ltd (1971) 219 Estates Gazette 1450 . … 12.17, 12.19 Barker, Re; Ex parte Penfold (1851) 4 De G & Sm 282; 64 ER 834 .… 39.61 Barker v Barker [1952] 1 All ER 1128 .… 1.34 Barker v Furlong [1891] 2 Ch 172 .… 3.55 Barker v Illingworth [1908] 2 Ch 20 .… 20.14 Barker v St Quentin (1844) 12 M & W 441; 152 ER 1270 .… 2.49 Barker (George) Transport Ltd v Eynon [1974] 1 All ER 900; [1974] 1 WLR 462 .… 2.27, 8.19 Barne, Re (1890) 62 LT 922 .… 40.20 Barnes v Glenton [1899] 1 QB 885 .… 16.17 Barnes v James (1902) 27 VLR 749 .… 28.16 Barnes v Racster (1842) 1 Y & CCC 401; 62 ER 944 .… 30.12, 30.15, 40.4, 40.18 Barnett v Weston (1806) 12 Ves 130; 33 ER 50 .… 25.4

Barney v Rigby Loan & Investment Co (1972) 344 F Supp 694 .… 5.44 Barnhart v Greenshields (1853) 9 Moo PCC18; 14 ER 204 .… 24.14, 24.21 Barns v Queensland National Bank Ltd (1906) 3 CLR 925 .… 16.7, 20.15, 20.18, 20.21, 20.22, 20.33, 39.51 Baron Kensington, Re; Earl of Longford v Baron Kensington [1902] 1 Ch 203 .… 29.2 Baroness Wenlock v River Dee Co (1883) 36 Ch D 675n .… 11.46 Baroness Wenlock v River Dee Co (1885) 10 App Cas 354 .… 11.33 Barr v Union Trustee Co of Aust Ltd [1923] VLR 236; 29 ALR 67 .… 13.24 Barratt v Gough-Thomas [1945] 2 All ER 65 .… 2.42, 42.7 Barratt v Gough-Thomas [1951] Ch 242 .… 2.33, 2.41 Barrell v Sabine (1684) 1 Vern 268; 23 ER 462 .… 1.27 Barret v Wells (1700) Prec Ch 131; 79 ER 309 .… 35.5 Barrett, Re; Re Whitaker v Barrett (1889) 43 Ch D 70 .… 11.17 Barrister and Solicitor, Re a; Re Legal Practitioners Ordinance 1970 (ACT) (1979) 40 FLR 26 .… 2.33 Barrier Reef Finance and Land Pty Ltd, Re (1988) 13 ACLR 708 .… 7.14 Barron v Willis [1902] AC 271 .… 42.2 Barrow v Smith (1885) 33 WR 743 .… 22.46 Barrow v White (1862) 2 John & H 580; 70 ER 1190 .… 39.21 Barry v Heider (1914) 19 CLR 197 .… 4.2, 4.23, 4.28, 21.9, 24.13, 28.14 Barry v Wrey (1827) 3 Russ 465; 38 ER 650 .… 33.5, 40.15 Barry Plant Real Estate (Doncaster & Templestowe) Pty Ltd v Pamacorp Consulting Services Pty Ltd [1991] ACL Rep 295 Vic 1 .… 18.19 Bartholomew v May (1737) 1 Atk 487; 26 ER 309 .… 30.3 Bartle v Wilkin (1836) 8 Sim 238; 59 ER 95 .… 22.2, 40.15 Bartlett v Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd (No 1) [1980] Ch 515; [1979] 1 All ER 139 .… 16.36

Bartlett v Bartlett (1857) 1 De G & J 127; 44 ER 671 .… 26.21 Bartlett v Franklin (1867) 36 LJ Ch 671; 15 WR 1077 .… 32.38, 39.59 Bartlett v Rees (1871) LR 12 Eq 395 .… 22.28 Bartlett Estates Pty Ltd, Re (1989) 14 ACLR 512 .… 8.11, 8.16, 8.18 Barton v Armstrong [1976] AC 104; [1975] 2 All ER 465 .… 13.37 Barton v Bank of New South Wales (1890) 15 App Cas 379 .… 1.25 Baskett v Skeel (1863) 11 WR 1019 .… 32.81 Basma v Weekes [1950] AC 441 .… 3.49 Bassard v Smith [1925] AC 371 .… 1.44 Batchelor v Middleton (1848) 6 Hare 75; 67 ER 1088 .… 19.37, 40.4 Batchelor & Co Pty Ltd v Websdale [1962] SR (NSW) 49 .… 1.4, 1.6 Bateman v Hunt [1904] 2 KB 530 .… 6.7, 15.2 Bates v Bonnor (1835) 7 Sim 427; 58 ER 901 .… 22.44 Bates v Hillcoat (1852) 16 Beav 139; 51 ER 730 .… 22.27 Bates v Johnson (1859) John 304; 70 ER 439 .… 25.4 Bateson v Gosling (1841) 41 LJCP 53 .… 34.7 Bateson v Gosling (1871) LR 7 CP 9 .… 35.9 Batten Proffitt and Scott v Dartmouth Harbour Commissioners (1890) 45 Ch D612 .… 40.20 Batten v Wedgwood Coal & Iron Co (1884) 28 Ch D 317 .… 2.16, 40.19 Batthyany v Bouch (1881) 4 Asp MLC 380; 50 LJQB 421 .… 9.16 Bauer Securities Pty Ltd, Re (1990) 4 ACSR 328; 8 ACLC 230 .… 8.1 Bauer v Bank of Montreal (1980) 110 DLR (3d) 424 .… 42.13 Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1985) 2 NSWLR 406 .… 2.16 Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137 .… 2.16 Bawn v Trade Credits Ltd (1986) NSW ConvR 55-290 .… 13.27

Bayly v Went (1884) 51 LT 764 .… 18.8 Bayly v Wilkins (1846) 3 Jo & Lat 630 .… 39.19 Baynard v Woolley (1855) 20 Beav 583; 52 ER 729 .… 3.49 Baypoint Pty Ltd v Baker (1994) 6 BPR 13, 687 .… 1.7, 3.13, 4.25, 4.28, 17.10 Bazzelgetti v Battine (1821) 2 Swan 156n; 36 ER 576 .… 33.8 BBC Hardware Ltd v GT Homes Pty Ltd (SC (Qld), Thomas J, 17 December 1996, unreported) .… 21.21 Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (1993) 9 ACSR 404; 11 ACLC 75 .… 18.19 Beachquest Pty Ltd v Interstate Mortgage and Investments Pty Ltd [2001] QSC 512 .… 30.9, 30.11 Beachquest Pty Ltd v Interstate Mortgage and Investments Pty Ltd [2003] 2 Qd R 586 .… 25.7, 25.8, 25.13, 25.14, 25.15, 25.16, 32.54 Beall, Re; Ex parte The Official Receiver [1899] 1 QB 688 .… 26.4, 26.6 Beaman v ARTS Ltd [1949] 1 KB 550; [1949] 1 All ER 465 .… 16.36 Bean v Wade (1885) Cab & El 519 .… 42.4 Beath v Armstrong (1910) 16 ALR 581 .… 21.4, 21.9, 22.12, 22.15, 22.25, 22.52 Beaton v Boulton [1891] WN 30 .… 22.36 Beattie v Jenkinson [1971] 3 All ER 495 .… 1.25 Beatty v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [1995] 2 VR 292 . … 4.11, 4.16 Beavan, Re; Ex parte Coombe (1819) 4 Madd 249; 56 ER 698 .… 3.37 Beavan v Cook (1869) 17 WR 872 .… 33.11 Beavan v Dobson (1906) 26 NZLR 69 .… 4.34, 36.17 Beavan v Earl of Oxford (1856) 6 De GM& G 507; 43 ER 1331 .… 24.50, 25.4 Beazley v Soares (1882) 22 Ch D 660 .… 22.42

Bebe v Pickering [1953] NZLR 832 .… 37.4 Bechera v Alie [2005] NSWCA 268 .… 2.33 Becket v Cordley (1784) 1 Bro CC 353; 28 ER 1174 .… 1.40 Beckett v Booth (1708) 2 Eq Cas Abr 595; 22 ER 500 .… 35.4 Beckett v Buckley (1874) LR 17 Eq 435 .… 32.26 Beckett v Micklethwaite (1821) 6 Madd 199; 56 ER 1067 .… 22.22 Beckett v Tower Assets Co [1891] 1 QB 1 .… 1.27 Beckford v Wildman (1810) 16 Ves 438; 33 ER 1050 .… 2.44 Beconwood Securities Pty Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2008) 246 ALR 361: 66 ACSR 116 .… 1.4 Bedall v Maitland (1881) 17 Ch D 174 .… 19.19 Beddoe, Re; Downes v Cottam [1893] 1 Ch 547 .… 40.6 Beddoes v Shaw [1937] Ch 81; [1936] 2 All ER 1108 .… 24.34 Bedford v Backhouse (1730) 2 Eq Cas Abr 615; 22 ER 516 .… 25.4 Beetham, Re; Ex parte Broderick (1886) 18 QBD 380 .… 3.41, 3.45 Beevor v Luck (1867) LR 4 Eq 537 .… 22.27, 31.4 Behrend’s Trust, Re; Surman v Biddell [1911] 1 Ch 687 .… 26.6 Beirnstein, Re; Barnett v Beirnstein [1925] Ch 12 .… 1.7, 1.9, 2.9, 29.2, 29.3 Belaney v French (1873) LR 8 Ch App 918 .… 2.43 Belbridge Property Trust Ltd, Re [1941] Ch 304; [1941] 2 All ER 48 .… 18.5 Belchier v Renforth (1764) 5 Bro PC 292; 2 ER 686 .… 25.2 Belgravia Insurance Co Ltd v Meah [1964] 1 QB 436 .… 37.9, 37.11 Bell, Ex parte; Re Tunstall & Cash (1847) De Gex 577 .… 2.32 Bell, Re; (1886) 34 Ch D 954 .… 42.9 Bell, Re; Carter v Stadden (1886) 54 LT 370 .… 24.50, 26.23 Bell, Re; Jeffery v Sayles [1896] 1 Ch 1 .… 6.24, 20.46

Bell v Bank of London (1858) 28 LJ Ex 116 .… 9.15 Bell v Banks (1841) 3 Man & G 258 .… 36.15 Bell v Blyth (1868) 4 Ch App 136 .… 9.28 Bell v L & NW Rly Co (1852) 15 Beav 548;51 ER 651 .… 6.12 Bell v Lever Bros Ltd [1932] AC 161 .… 13.41 Bell v London and South Western Bank [1874] WN (Eng) 10 .… 11.45 Bell v Peter Browne & Co [1990] 2 QB 495 .… 11.41 Bell v Sunderland Building Society (1883) 24 Ch D 618 .… 36.12 Bell v Taylor (1836) 8 Sim 216; 59 ER 87 .… 2.35, 2.40 Bellaglade Ltd, Re [1977] 1 All ER 319 .… 8.19 Bellamy v Brickenden (1861) 2 John & H 137;70 ER 1002 .… 39.45, 40.25 Bellamy v Cockle (1854) 18 Jur 465; 2 WR 326 .… 22.43 Bellamy v Davey [1891] 3 Ch 540 .… 2.24 Bellinger, Re; Durrell v Bellinger [1898] 2 Ch 534 .… 11.12 Bell’s Dairy Limited; International Harvester Credit Corporation of Canada Ltd, Re v Touche Ross Limited (1986) 50 Sask R 177; 6 PPSAC 138 .… 5.112 Belmont Finance Corp Ltd v Williams Furniture Ltd [1979] Ch 250; [1979] 1 All ER 118 .… 13.45 Belmont Finance Corp Ltd v Williams Furniture Ltd (No 2) [1980] 1 All ER 393 .… 13.45 Belmore (C J) Pty Ltd v AGC (General Finance) Ltd [1976] 1 NSWLR 507 . … 32.14, 39.50, 39.55, 39.60 Belton v Bass, Ratcliffe and Gretton Ltd [1922] 2 Ch 449 .… 20.6, 20.21 Bench v Shearman [1898] 2 Ch 582 .… 26.8 Bendigo Sandhurst Mutual Permanent Land and Building Society Ltd v Tefeti Pty Ltd (1995) 17 ACSR 463 .… 14.2 Beneficial Finance Corporation Ltd v Karavas (1991) 23 NSWLR 256 .…

13.35, 13.36 Benham v Keane (1861) 1 John & H 685; 70 ER 919 .… 25.50, 26.17 Benham v Keane 3 De GF & J 318; 45 ER 901 .… 26.17 Benjamin v Ashikian [2007] NSWSC 735 .… 5.10 Benjamin Cope & Sons Ltd, Re [1914] 1 Ch 800 .… 8.18 Bennett v Higgs (1886) 2 TLR 715 .… 12.2 Bennett v Wyndham (1857) 23 Beav 521; 53 ER 205 .… 11.12 Bennett, Re; Clarke v White [1899] 1 Ch 316 .… 1.23 Bennett, Re; Ex parte Official Receiver [1907] 1 KB 149 .… 26.6 Bentham v Haincourt (1691) 1 Eq Cas Abr 320 pl 2; 24 ER 16 .… 39.47 Bentinck v Willink (1842) 2 Hare 1; 67 ER 1 .… 32.81 Benyon v Amphlett (1862) 8 Jur (NS) 759 .… 2.43 Beresford v Royal Insurance Co Ltd [1938] AC 586; [1938] 2 All ER 602 . … 6.15 Berkeley Applegate (Investment Consultants) Ltd, Re [1989] Ch 32; [1989] BCLC 28 .… 2.17, 2.52 Berkeley v King’s College Cambridge (1830) 10 Beav 602; 50 ER 714 .… 13.49 Berkshire Capital Funding Pty Ltd v Street (1999) 78 P & CR 321 .… 12.23, 12.27 Bermingham’s Estate, Re (1870) IR 5 Eq 147 .… 16.31 Bernard v Norton (1864) 3 New Rep 701; 10 LT NS 183; 142 RR 755 .… 22.47, 32.43 Berney v Sewell (1820) 1 Jac & W 647; 37 ER 515 .… 18.22, 39.28 Berridge v Berridge (1890) 44 Ch D 168 .… 42.13 Berrington v Evans (1839) 3 Y & C Ex 384; 160 ER 751 .… 1.34, 2.7 Berry (a bankrupt), Re [1976] 2 NZLR 449 .… 30.7 Berry v Advance Bank Australia Ltd (1995) 6 BPR 14,046 .… 3.15, 32.7,

39.60 Berry v Gibbons (1873) 8 Ch App 747 .… 11.17 Bertlin v Gordon [1886] WN 31 .… 22.28 Berwick & Co v Price [1905] 1 Ch 632 .… 24.10, 24.14, 24.15, 24.37, 32.88 Best, Re; Parker v Best [1924] 1 Ch 42 .… 30.4 Bester v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd [1970] 3 NSWR 30 .… 13.24 Bethian Pty Ltd v Green (1977) 3 Fam LR 11,579 .… 4.28 Betts, Re; Ex parte Harrison (1881) 18 Ch D 127 .… 39.26 Bevan v Waters (1828) 3 Car & P 520; 172 ER 529 .… 2.22 Bevham Investments Pty Ltd v Belgot Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 494 .… 1.4, 1.7, 3.14, 17.2, 20.6, 32.8 Bew v Bew [1899] 2 Ch 467 .… 40.6 Beynon v Cook (1875) 10 Ch App 389 .… 13.11, 13.14 Bickerton v Walker (1885) 31 Ch D 151 .… 14.1, 39.13 Biddulph v Billiter Street Offices Co (1895) 72 LT 834 .… 22.28 Big River Timbers Pty Ltd v Stewart (1998) 9 BPR 15,599 .… 28.8 Big Rock Pty Ltd v Esanda Finance Corporation Pty Ltd (1992) 10 WAR 259 .… 32.65 Biggerstaff v Rowatt’s Wharf Ltd [1896] 2 Ch 93 .… 2.4, 6.8, 8.19 Biggs v Hoddinott [1898] 2 Ch 307 .… 19.41, 32.8, 32.11, 32.12, 32.14, 32.15 Biggs v McEllister (1880) 14 SALR 86 .… 4.22 Bill Fitts Auto Sales, Inc v Daniels 325 Ark 51(1996) .… 5.133 Billson v Residential Apartments Ltd [1992] 1 AC 494; [1992] 1 All ER 141 .… 37.10 Bingham v King (1866) 14 WR 414 .… 22.20 Binney v Mutrie (1886) 12 App Cas 160 .… 2.18

Binnington v Harwood (1825) Turn & R 477; 37 ER 1184 .… 39.39, 40.10 Birch, Re; Hunt v Thorn [1909] 1 Ch 787 .… 29.3 Birch v Ellames (1794) 2 Anst 427; 145 ER 924 .… 3.37, 21.9, 24.15, 24.36 Birch v Wright (1786) 1 Term Rep 378; 99 ER 1148; [1775–1802] All ER Rep 41 .… 12.9, 12.19, 19.16 Birchall v Pugin (1875) LR 10 CP 397 .… 2.48 Bird v Gandy (1715) 7 Vin Abr 45, pl 20; 22 ER 213 .… 22.35, 39.29 Bird v Philpott [1900] 1 Ch 822 .… 11.22 Bird v Wenn (1886) 33 Ch D 215 .… 31.9, 40.11 Birmingham, Re [1959] Ch 523; [1958] 2 All ER 397 .… 2.10, 29.2 Birmingham Citizens Permanent Building Society v Caunt [1962] Ch 883; [1962] 1 All ER 163 .… 19.12, 19.15 Birt, Re (1883) 22 Ch D 604 .… 2.30 Bishop v Bonham [1988] 1 WLR 742 .… 20.22 Bishop v Church (1751) 2 Ves Sen 371; 28 ER 238 .… 32.41 Bishop v Mantell (1807) 3 Seton’s Judgments and Orders (7th ed) 1886 .… 19.39 Bishop of Winchester v Paine (1805) 11 Ves 194; 32 ER 106 .… 33.5, 33.25 Bismarck Australia, Re (1980) 4 ACLR 962 .… 8.20 Bismark, Re [1981] VR 527 .… 8.19 Biss, Re; Biss v Biss [1905] 2 Ch 40 .… 3.29 Biss, Re; Heasman v Biss [1956] Ch 243 .… 29.3 Bissett v ANZ Bank Ltd [1961] NZLR 687 .… 30.9 Bissill v Bradford Tramway Co [1893] WN (Eng) 44 .… 2.37 Bittar, Re [1964] NSWR 438; 80 WN (NSW) 1597 .… 4.7 Black Uhlans Inc v NSW Crime Commission [2002] NSWSC 1060; (2000) 12 BPR 29 .… 37.14

Blackburn Benefit Building Society v Cunliffe, Brooks & Co (1882) 22 Ch D61 .… 11.9 Blackburn Building Society v Cunliffe, Brooks& Co (1882) 22 Ch D 61 .… 32.53 Blackburn v Caine (1856) 22 Beav 614; 52 ER 1245 .… 22.31 Blackford v Davis (1869) 4 Ch App 304 .… 39.10, 39.37, 40.27, 42.1 Blackpool Motor Car Co Ltd, Re; Hamilton v Blackpool Motor Car Co Ltd [1901] 1 Ch 72 .… 42.16 Blackwood v London Chartered Bank of Australia (1871) 10 SCR (NSW) (Eq) 56 .… 27.13, 27.14 Blackwood v London Chartered Bank of Australia (1874) LR 5 PC 92 .… 24.5, 25.2, 25.4 Blades v Higgs (1861) 10 CB (NS) 713; 142 ER 634 .… 19.20 Blaiberg and Abrahams, Re [1899] 2 Ch 340 .… 14.8 Black v Williams [1895] 1 Ch 408 .… 9.17, 9.23 Blake, Re; Clutterbuck v Bradford [1945] Ch 61 .… 2.48 Blake v Foster (1813) 2 Ball & B 387 .… 33.2 Blake v Nicholson (1814) 3 M & S 167; 105 ER 573 .… 2.22, 2.26 Blakely v Dent (1867) 15 WR 663 .… 16.1 Blakely v Teal Investments Ltd [1982] NZLJ 242 .… 20.18 Blaker v Herts and Essex Waterworks Co (1889) 41 Ch D 399 .… 18.23, 21.14 Blakesley and Beswick, Re (1863) 32 Beav 379; 55 ER 148 .… 40.24 Blanche, The (1887) 58 LT 592 .… 16.1 Blandy v Kimber (1858) 25 Beav 537; 53 ER 742 .… 39.22 Blaxland v Grattan (1887) 8 LR (NSW) L287 .… 27.10 Bleaden v Hancock (1829) 4 Car & P 152; 172 ER 648 .… 2.22, 2.26 Blest v Brown (1862) 4 De G F & J 367; 45 ER 1225 .… 35.7, 35.8

Bligh v Davies (1860) 28 Beav 211; 54 ER 346 .… 2.32 Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362 .… 13.4, 13.30, 13.31, 13.32 Bloodstock Airservices of Australia Pty Ltd v Roadrunner Equipment Pty Ltd (1985) 10 ACLR 36 .… 11.43 Bloomfield v Blake (1833) 6 C & P 75; 172 ER 1152 .… 13.40 Blow v Constable (1886) 3 WN (NSW) 24 .… 7.8 Blue Jeans Sales Ltd, Re [1979] 1 All ER 641 .… 37.9 Blouin, Re; Caisse Populaire Desjardins de Val-Brillant v Métivier & Associés Inc [2003] 1 SCR 666; (2003) 225 DLR (4th) 577 .… 5.42 Blundell v Associated Securities Ltd (1971) 19 FLR 167 .… 20.20 Blundell-Leigh v Attenborough [1921] 1 KB 382 .… 1.11 Blunden v Desart (1842) 2 Dru & War 405 .… 2.37, 2.40 Blythe Green and Jordain Pty Ltd v Sienna Pty Ltd (1986) 82 FLR 291 .… 7.10 Boag v Ross (1922) 22 SR (NSW) 242 .… 11.15 Boaler v Mayor (1865) 19 CB NS 76; 44 ER 714 .… 36.15 Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46 .… 42.2 Bobbett’s Estate, Re [1904] 1 IR 461 .… 24.30 Boden v Hensby [1892] 1 Ch 101 .… 2.43 Bodenham v Halle (1456) Select Cases in Chancery 1346–1471 (vol 10 Selden Society Yearbooks) .… 1.14 Boehm v Goodall [1911] 1 Ch 155 .… 18.25 Bofinger v Kingsway Group Ltd [2009] HCA 44; 239 CLR 269; 260 ALR 71 .… 4.25, 10.12, 20.43, 20.45, 36.9, 42.19 Bogdanovic v Koteff (1988) 12 NSWLR 472 .… 4.22, 13.9 Bolckow v Herne Bay Pier Co (1852) 1 E & B 74; 118 ER 364 .… 16.12 Bolingbroke v Hinde (1884) 25 Ch D 795 .… 21.4, 40.25 Bolster v Mc Callum (1966) 85 WN (Pt 1) 281; [1966] 2 NSWR 660 .…

2.33 Bolton Building Society v Cobb [1965] 3 All ER 814; [1966] 1 WLR 1 .… 12.19, 12.24 Bolton v Buckenham [1891] 1 QB 278 .… 17.8, 35.8 Bolton v Darling Downs Building Society [1935] St R Qd 237 .… 18.23 Bolton v Salmon [1891] 2 Ch 48 .… 35.8 Bompas v King (1886) 33 Ch D 279 .… 19.34, 39.33, 42.21 Bonacino, Re; Ex parte Discount Banking Co (1894) 10 R 147; 1 Mans 59 . … 23.10 Bond v McClay [1903] St R Qd 1 .… 7.14, 24.49, 24.51 Bond Brewing Holdings Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd (1990) 1 ACSR 445; 8 ACLC 330 .… 2.5, 18.19 Bond Worth Ltd, Re [1980] Ch 228; [1979] 3 All ER 919 .… 1.7, 1.9, 1.10, 1.48, 2.9, 2.13, 8.13, 8.14 Bonham v Newcomb (1681) 1 Vern 214; 23 ER 422 .… 1.29 Bonham v Newcomb (1684) 1 Vern 232; 23 ER 435 .… 16.7 Bonham v Newcomb (1726) 2 Vern 364; 86 ER 488 .… 16.5 Bonithon v Hockmore (1685) 1 Vern 316; 23 ER 492 .… 19.41 Bonner v Tottenham & Edmonton Permanent Investment Building Society [1899] 1 Ch 161 .… 3.3 Bonney v Ridgard (1784) 1 Cox Eq Cas 145; 29 ER 1101 .… 11.17, 11.18 Bonnin v Neame [1910] 1 Ch 732 .… 6.18, 11.28 Bonython v Commonwealth [1951] AC 201 .… 1.43 Boodle Hatfield & Co v British Films Ltd [1986] NLJ Rep 117; [1986] PCC 176 .… 2.14 Booth v A’Beckett (1863) 1 Moore NS 201; 15 ER 676 .… 12.24 Booth v Alington (1856) 26 LJ Ch 138 3 .… 39.55 Booth v Booth (1742) 2 Atk 343; 26 ER 609 .… 1.51, 16.10

Booth v Creswicke (1837) 8 Sim 352; 59 ER 139 .… 33.5, 33.21 Booth v Creswicke (1841) Cr & Ph 361; 41 ER 528 .… 22.35 Booth v Creswicke (1844) 8 Jur NS 323; 13 LJ Ch 217 .… 16.37 Booth v Salvation Army Building Association (1897) 14 TLR 3 .… 32.15 Booth v Thomson [1972] SLT 141 .… 2.52 Booth’s Settlement, Re (1853) 1 WR 444 .… 26.20 Borax Co, Re; Foster v Borax Co [1901] Ch 326 .… 8.16 Borell v Dann (1843) 2 Hare 440; 67 ER 181 .… 13.23, 24.18 Born, Re; Curnock v Born [1900] 2 Ch 433 .… 2.48 Boronia Park Properties Pty Ltd v Arramunda Airways Pty Ltd [1995] NTSC 16 .… 19.37 Borrow, Re; Ex parte Broadbent (1834) 1 Mont & A 635 .… 3.38 Boscawen v Bajwa [1995] 4 All ER 769 .… 5.33, 33.7, 33.8, 42.13, 42.19 Bosquet’s Caveat, Re (1883) 17 SALR 173 .… 24.51 Boss v Hopkinson (1870) 18 WR 725 .… 26.1, 26.15 Boughton, Re (1883) 23 Ch D 169 .… 2.43 Boulter, Re; Ex parte National Provincial Bank of England (1876) 4 Ch D 241 .… 3.40 Boulton v Buckingham [1891] 1 QB 298 .… 14.1 Bourke v Beneficial Finance Corp Ltd (1991) ANZ Conv R 473 .… 20.21, 20.28, 20.35 Bourne, Re; Bourne v Bourne [1906] 2 Ch 427 .… 11.26, 11.30, 24.14 Bovey v Skipwich (1671) 1 Cas in Ch 201; 22 ER 762 .… 31.10 Bovill v Endle [1896] 1 Ch 648 .… 32.6, 32.36 Bovy v Smith (1682) 1 Vern 144; 22 ER 877 .… 24.18 Bow McLachlan & Co v Ship Camosun [1909] AC 597 .… 1.48 Bowcock, Re [1968] 2 NSWLR 697 .… 29.2

Bowen v Wakim (SC (NSW), Smart J, 27 August 1990, unreported) .… 2.49, 2.51 Bowerman, Re; Porter v Bowerman [1908] 2 Ch 340 .… 29.2 Bowker v Bull (1850) 1 Sim NS 29; 61 ER 11 .… 31.4, 35.3 Bowkett v Action Finance Ltd [1992] 1 NZLR 449 .… 13.30 Bowles v Rogers (1800) 6 Ves 95n; 31 ER 957 .… 2.9 Bowmaker Ltd v Wycombe Motors Ltd [1946] 2 All ER 113 .… 2.27 Boyce v Beckman (1890) 11 LR (NSW) (L) 139 .… 27.10 Boydell v Manby (1852) 9 Hare App I liii; 68 ER 788 .… 22.15 Bozon v Williams (1829) 3 Y & J 150; 148 ER 1131 .… 3.40, 24.15 BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 16 ALR 363; 52 ALJR 20 .… 19.15 Brabon, Re [2001] 1 BCLC 11 .… 13.4 Brace v Duchess of Marlborough (1728) 2 P Wms 491; 24 ER 829 .… 25.2, 25.4, 25.11 Bradbury v Wild [1893] 1 Ch 377 .… 32.32 Bradford Banking Co Ltd v Henry Briggs, Son & Co Ltd (1886) 12 App Cas 29 .… 2.18, 6.8, 6.17, 25.7, 26.12 Bradford Roofing Industries Pty Ltd (in liq) and Companies Act, Re [1966] 1 NSWR 674 .… 5.104 Bradley v Carritt [1903] AC 253 .… 1.29, 32.14 Bradley v Copley (1845) 1 CB 685; 135 ER 711 .… 3.55 Bradley v Riches (1878) 9 Ch D 189 .… 24.23, 24.29, 24.45 Bradshaw v Widdrington [1902] 2 Ch 430 .… 16.33 Brady v Brady (1874) 8 SALR 219 .… 4.18 Brady v Stapleton (1952) 88 CLR 322 .… 5.33, 13.7 Brady, Re [1947] VLR 347 .… 29.3 Bramwell v Eglinton (1864) 5 B & S 39; 122 ER 747 .… 19.12

Brandao v Barnett (1846) 12 Cl & Fin 787; 8 ER 1622 .… 2.33, 2.36 Bradford & Bingley plc v Rashid [2006] 1 WLR 2066 .… 16.34 Brandon v Brandon (1859) 3 De G & J 524; 44 ER 1371 .… 42.13 Brandon v Brandon (1862) 10 WR 287 .… 19.35, 19.39 Branwood Park Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v Willing & Sons Pty Ltd (1977) 1 BPR 9534 .… 3.15 Branwood Park Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v Willing & Sons Pty Ltd [1976] 2 NSWLR 149 .… 32.7, 32.10, 32.36 Brassington v Brassington (1823) 1 Sim & St 455; 57 ER 182 .… 2.44 Brearcliff v Dorrington (1850) 4 De G & Sm 122; 64 ER 762 .… 24.49, 24.50, 26.26 Breathour v Brown (1885) 1 WN (NSW) 140 .… 12.4 Brecon Corporation v Seymour (1859) 26 Beav 548; 53 ER 1010 .… 31.5, 32.55 Bree v Scott (1904) 29 VLR 692 .… 4.38, 10.8 Breech-Loading Armoury Co, Re; Wragge’s Case(1868) LR 5 Eq 284 .… 26.13 Breeds, Re; Ex parte Alsager (1841) 2 Mont D& De G 328 .… 31.8 Brenchley v Higgins (1900) LJ Ch 788 .… 13.14 Brend v Brend (1684) 1 Vern 213; 23 ER 421 .… 32.31 Brennan v Pitt, Son & Badgery Ltd (1899) 20 LR (NSW) (Eq) 179 .… 14.1 Brennan v Pitt, Son & Badgery Ltd (1901) 1 SR (NSW) Eq 92 .… 32.47 Brennand, Re (1843) NSW Sel Cas (Dowling) 619 .… 3.13, 17.10 Brent v Jones (1870) 1 VR(E) 76 .… 29.2 Brereton v Edwards (1888) 21 QBD 488 .… 7.13 Brereton v Nicholls [1993] BCLC 593 .… 2.33

Breskvar v Wall (1971) 126 CLR 376 .… 4.11, 4.12, 4.16, 28.13, 28.16 Brett v Barr Smith (1919) 26 CLR 87 .… 41.3 Brett v Cumberland Properties Pty Ltd [1986] VR 107 .… 37.5 Brettle, Re (1864) 2 De GJ & Sm 244; 46 ER 369 .… 35.5 Brewer v Square [1892] 2 Ch 111 .… 21.14, 21.15, 21.21, 21.23 Brewer’s Settlement, Re; Morton v Blackmore [1896] 2 Ch 503 .… 13.51 Briant v Lightfoot (1837) 1 Jur 20 .… 40.13 Briar Building Holdings Ltd v Bow West Holdings Ltd (1981) 126 DLR (3d) 566 .… 3.15 Brice v Bannister (1878) 3 QBD 569 .… 6.11 Brick and Pipe Industries Ltd v Occidental Life Nominees Pty Ltd [1992] 2 VR 279 .… 17.7 Bride v Australian Bank Ltd [2000] WASC116 .… 18.14 Bride v Freehill Hollingdale and Page (1996) ANZ ConvR 593 .… 4.15, 18.5 Bridge Wholesale Acceptance Corp (Aust) Ltd v Burnard (1992) 27 NSWLR 415 .… 1.33, 1.34, 1.39, 1.41, 4.28, 5.38 Bridge Wholesale Acceptance Corp (Australia) Pty Ltd v Fairstar Pty Ltd [1991] ACL Rep 295 NSW 4 .… 1.41 Bridgeman v Green (1757) WIlm 58; 97 ER 22 .… 13.2 Bridgwater v De Winton (1863) 33 LJ Ch 238 .… 33.11 Brien v Dwyer (1979) 141 CLR 378 .… 32.45 Brierley v Kendall (1852) 17 QB 937; 117 ER 1540 .… 3.55 Brigers v Orr (1932) 32 SR (NSW) 634 .… 20.4 Briggs v Harcourt (1911) 31 NZLR 366 .… 37.13 Briggs v Jones (1870) LR 10 Eq 92 .… 24.42 Brigham v Saunders (1880) OB & F (CA) 66 .… 30.13 Bright v Campbell (1885) 54 LJ Ch 1077 .… 39.31

Brightlife Ltd, Re [1987] Ch 200; [1986] 3 All ER 673 .… 5.116, 8.20, 11.39 Brighton and Hove City Council Andus [2009] EWHC 340 (Ch) .… 32.12 Bright’s Trusts, Re (1856) 21 Beav 430; 52 ER 925 .… 24.19, 26.19 Brighty v Norton (1862) 3 B & S 305; 122 ER 116 .… 17.9 Brinkworth v The Commissioners of the Rural and Industries Bank of Western Australia [1990] ANZ ConvR 243 .… 39.50 Briscoe v Kenrick (1832) 1 LJ Ch 116 .… 22.5 Bristol & West of England Bank v Midland Railway Co [1891] 2 QB 653 . … 3.55 Bristol Airport plc v Powdrill [1990] Ch 744; [1990] 2 All ER 493 .… 1.4 Bristol and West Building Society v Henning [1985] 1 WLR 778; [1985] 2 All ER 606 .… 24.1, 24.21 Bristol United Breweries Ltd v Abbot [1908] 1 Ch 279 .… 11.42 Britannia Building Society v Earl [1990] 2 All ER 469 .… 12.17 British American Nickel Corp Ltd v O’Brien Ltd [1927] AC 369 .… 8.2 British Anzani (Felixstowe) Ltd v International Maritime Management (UK) Ltd [1980] 1 QB 137 .… 19.24 British Bank for Foreign Trade Ltd v Russian Commercial and Industrial Bank (No 2) (1921) 38 TLR 65 .… 32.45 British Consolidated Oil Corp Ltd, Re [1919] 2 Ch 81 .… 8.5 British Eagle International Airlines Ltd v Air France [1975] 1 WLR 758; [1975] 2 All ER 390 .… 10.15 British Empire Mutual Life Assurance Co v Sugden (1878) 47 LJ Ch 691 .… 22.48 British Motor Trust Co Ltd v Hyams (1934) 50 TLR 230 .… 35.7 British South Africa Co v De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd [1912] AC 52 . … 1.35 British South Africa Co v De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd [1910] 2 Ch 502 .… 1.35

British Union and National Insurance Co v Rawson [1916] 2 Ch 476 .… 17.5 Broad v Commissioner of Stamp Duties [1980] 2 NSWLR 40 .… 1.4, 6.20 Broad v Public Trustee [1939] NZLR 140 .… 17.11 Broad v Selfe (1863) 11 WR 1036; 9 Jur (NS) 885 .… 32.15, 40.9 Broadbank Corp v Mosgiel [1985] 1 NZLR 257 .… 39.43 Broadbent v Barlow (1861) 3 De GF & J 570; 45 ER 999 .… 24.16, 30.13 Broadlands International Finance Ltd v Sly (1987) 4 BPR 9420; ANZ ConvR 329 .… 13.27, 13.41 Brocklesby v Temperance Permanent Building Society [1895] AC 173 .… 11.24, 14.4, 24.42 Brodie Hotel Supply v United States 431 F 2d 1316 (9th Cir 1970) .… 5.87 Bromitt v Moor (1851) 9 Hare 374; 68 ER 552 .… 33.12 Bromley v Bromley 106 Ga App 606 (1962) .… 5.136 Bromley v Rice Marketing Board for the State of New South Wales; Minister for Bromley v Smith (1859) 26 Beav 644; 53 ER 1047 .… 13.11 Brompton Securities Ltd, Re (No 2) [1988] BCLC 616 .… 37.9 Brooke v Haymes (1868) LR 6 Eq 25 .… 17.1 Brooke v Pearson (1859) 27 Beav 181; 54 ER 70 .… 13.51 Brooke v Stone (1865) 34 LJ Ch 251 .… 19.39 Brougham v Cauvin (1868) 16 WR 688 .… 2.44 Broughton, Re (1916) 17 SR (NSW) 29 .… 24.51 Broughton v Rodd (1866) 4 SCR (NSW) Eq 54 .… 17.1 Broughton v Rodd (1867) 6 SCR (NSW) Eq 102 .… 39.50 Broughton v Snook [1938] Ch 505 .… 11.20 Browell v Pledge [1888] WN 166 .… 22.31 Brown, Re (1886) 32 Ch D 597 .… 2.18 Brown, Re (2012) 479 BR 112 .… 5.38

Brown v Abbott (1881) 7 VLR (E) 121 .… 29.3 Brown v Barkham (1720) 1 P Wms 652; 24 ER 555 .… 39.53 Brown v Cole (1845) 14 Sim 427; 60 ER 424 .… 1.14, 1.15, 32.6 Brown v Cork [1985] BCLC 363 .… 30.2 Brown v Peto [1900] 2 QB 653 .… 12.23 Brown v San Luis Obispo National Bank 462 F (2d) 129 (9th Cir) (1972) .… 2.5 Brown v Sewell (1853) 11 Hare 49; 68 ER 1182 .… 32.82 Brown v Stead (1832) 5 Sim 535; 58 ER 439 .… 36.11 Brown v Storey (1840) 1 Man & G 117; 133 ER 270 .… 39.14 Brown v Tanner (1868) 3 Ch App 597 .… 9.16, 9.25 Brown, Shipley & Co v Kough (1885) 29 Ch D 848 .… 1.40, 2.4, 2.6, 6.13 Browne v Carr (1831) 7 Bing 508; 131 ER 197 .… 35.7, 35.8 Browne v Cranfield (1925) 25 SR (NSW) 443 .… 31.1, 31.11 Browne v Lockhart (1840) 10 Sim 420; 59 ER 678 .… 22.2, 32.36, 33.15, 40.13 Browne v London Necropolis and National Mausoleum Co (1857) 6 WR 188 .… 1.41, 16.2 Browne v Price (1858) 4 CBNS 598; 140 ER 1225 .… 17.6 Browne v Ryan [1901] 2 IR 653 .… 19.41, 32.15 Browne v Savage (1859) 4 Drew 635; 62 ER 244 .… 24.8, 26.18 Browning v Handiland Group Ltd (1978) 35 P & CR 345 .… 32.82 Brown’s Estate, Re; Brown v Brown [1893] 2 Ch 300 .… 16.31, 17.8 Brown’s Estate, Re; Lloyds Bank Ltd v Margolis [1954] 1 All ER 734; [1954] 1 WLR 644 .… 17.8 Brown’s Trusts, Re (1867) LR 5 Eq 88 .… 26.3 Brownson v Lawrence (1868) LR 6 Eq 1 .… 30.2

Bruce v Garden (1869) LR 5 Ch App 32 .… 6.15, 32.73 Bruce v Woods [1951] VLR 49 .… 24.49, 24.51 Bruce, Ex parte (1813) 1 Rose 374 .… 3.40 Brunker v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd (1937) 57 CLR 555 .… 4.37 Brunton v Electrical Engineering Corp [1892] 1 Ch 434 .… 2.40 Brusewitz v Brown [1923] NZLR 1106 .… 13.16, 13.20, 13.22, 13.23, 13.24 Brutan Investments Pty Ltd v Underwriting and Insurance Ltd (1980) 58 FLR 289 .… 20.8, 20.27, 20.34, 20.38 Buchanan Borehole Collieries Pty Ltd v NSW Coal Compensation Review Tribunal (1997) 9 BPR 16,253 .… 36.2 Buchanan v Crown & Gleeson Business Finance Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1465; (2005) 13 BPR 24,513 .… 4.27 Buchanan v Greenway (1849) 12 Beav 355; 50 ER 1097 .… 22.32, 22.37, 39.41 Buchanan v May (1911) 12 SR (NSW) 366 .… 29.2 Buchler v Talbot [2004] 2 AC 298; [2004] 1 All ER 1289 .… 2.52, 8.11, 8.12, 8.21 Buckeridge v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 654 .… 42.15 Buckhurst’s Case (1595) Moore KB 687; 72 ER 713 .… 3.31 Buckley, Re; Ex parte Arkell [1954] QWN 11 .… 7.10 Buckley v Buckley (1887) 19 LR Ir 544 .… 30.10 Bucknell v Bucknell [1969] 2 All ER 998 .… 20.47 Bucknell v Vickery (1891) 64 LT 701 .… 32.15, 39.56 Bufalo Corp Pty Ltd v Leone (2001) 40 ACSR 327 .… 18.9 Bugden v Bignold (1843) 2 Y & C Ch Cas 377; 63 ER 167 .… 30.12 Bulkeyley v Hope (1855) 1 K & J 482; 69 ER 549 .… 36.6 Bull v Faulkner (1847) 1 De G & Sm 685; 63 ER 1251 .… 39.29 Bull v Faulkner (1848) 2 De G & Sm 772; 64 ER 346 .… 2.31

Bullen v a’Beckett (1863) 1 Moo P C (NS) 223; 15 ER 684 .… 27.11 Buller v Plunkett (1860) 1 John & H 441; 70 ER 819 .… 2.7, 26.15 Bullock v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1955] Ch 317; [1954] 3 All ER 726 .… 13.22, 13.24 Bulmer, Re; Ex parte Johnson (1853) 2 De GM & G 218; 43 ER 86 .… 35.7 Bulstrode v Bradley (1747) 3 Ark 582; 26 ER 1136 .… 39.29 Bunbury Foods Pty Ltd, Re; Robertson v Nissho Iwai Australia Ltd (1985) WAR 126; (1985) 2 ACLC 639 .… 32.21 Bunbury Foods Pty Ltd v National Bank of Australasia Ltd (1984) 153 CLR 491; 51 ALR 609; (1984) 58 ALJR .… 17.9, 18.7, 19.15, 20.4, 20.15 Bunning Building Supplies Pty Ltd v Sgro (1995) V ConvR 54-535 .… 4.27 Burdick v Sewell (1883) 10 QBD 363 .… 1.11 Burdick v Sewell (1884) 10 App Cas 74 .… 1.11 Burge, Woodall & Co, Re; Ex parte Skyrme[1912] 1 KB 393 .… 30.10 Burger King Corp v Hungry Jack’s Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 187 .… 5.121 Burgess, Re; Ex parte Freen (1827) 2 Gl & J 250 .… 23.8 Burgess v Moxon (1856) 2 Jur NS 1059 .… 3.37, 3.40 Burgess v Sturges (1851) 14 Beav 440; 51 ER 356 .… 22.5 Burgess v Wheate (1757) 1 Eden 177; 28 ER 652 .… 2.15 Burgis v Constantine [1908] 2 KB 484 .… 6.17, 9.28 Burke v Dawes (1938) 59 CLR 1 .… 4.23, 11.16, 28.6 Burke v O’Connor (1888) 4 Ir Ch R 418 .… 40.23 Burke v State Bank of NSW Ltd (1994) 37 NSWLR 53; 6 BPR 13,714 .… 3.8, 13.28, 13.29 Burkill, Re; Ex parte Nettleship (1841) 2 Mont D & De G 124 .… 3.43 Burn v Carvalho (1839) 4 My & Cr 690; 41 ER 265 .… 6.11, 6.14 Burne v Robinson (1844) 1 Dr & Wal 688 .… 39.7

Burnes v Trade Credits Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 93; [1981] 1 WLR 805; [1981] 2 All ER 122 .… 3.14, 3.33, 35.8 Burnes v Trade Credits Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 93; 34 ALR 459 .… 17.2 Burns Philp Trustee Co Ltd v Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) (1983) 14 ATR 482 .… 8.1 Burns Philp Trustee Co Ltd v Ironside Investments Pty Ltd [1984] 2 Qd R 16 .… 1.23 Burrell v Earl of Egremont (1844) 7 Beav 205;49 ER 1043 .… 36.5, 36.8 Burrell v Hope (1871) 2 QSCR 155 .… 4.24 Burrell, Re; Burrell v Smith (1869) LR 7 Eq 399 .… 15.3, 17.10, 22.38, 32.55, 33.16 Burridge v Row (1842) 1 Y & CC 183; 62 ER 846 .… 2.16 Burroughs-Fowler, Re [1916] 2 Ch 251 .… 13.51 Burrowes v Gradin (1843) 1 Dowl & L 213; 12 LJ QB 333 .… 12.14, 19.30 Burrowes v Molloy (1845) 2 Jo & Lat 521; 8 Ir Eq R 482 .… 3.16, 16.5, 16.6, 16.7, 18.21, 19.39, 39.55 Burrows v Crimp (1887) 8 LR (NSW) 198 .… 27.13, 27.12 Burston Finance Ltd v Speirway Ltd [1974] 3 All ER 735 .… 2.14, 42.19 Burt, Boulton and Hayward v Bull [1895] 1 QB 276 .… 19.31 Burton, Re; Ex parte Union Bank of Australia Ltd (1901) 27 VLR 437 .… 14.16, 17.5 Burton Marsden Douglas, Re [2004] 3 All ER 222 .… 11.30 Burton v Arcus (2004) 51 ACSR 683 .… 11.5 Burton v Honan (1952) 86 CLR 169 .… 37.14 Bury v Bury (1748) Sudg V & P (11th ed) App No 25 .… 24.24 Business Australia Capital Mortgage Pty Ltd v Randwick Nominees Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 643 .… 4.26 Business Computers Ltd v Anglo-African Leasing Ltd [1977] 2 All ER 741;

[1977] 1 WLR 578 .… 6.6 Busk v Lewis (1821) 6 Madd 29; 56 ER 1000 .… 2.44 Butchart v Dresser (1853) 4 De G M & G 542; 43 ER 619 .… 11.26 Butler Engineering Ltd v First Investors Corp Ltd [1986] 1 WWR 469 .… 30.9, 30.10 Butler Pollnow Pty Ltd v Garden Mews St Leonards Pty Ltd (1988) 13 ACLR 656 .… 18.6 Butler v Fairclough (1917) 23 CLR 78 .… 4.15, 4.23, 4.27, 28.10, 28.12, 28.16 Butler v Rice [1910] 2 Ch 277 .… 14.6, 32.48, 42.18 Byrne v Allied Irish Banks Ltd [1978] IR 446 .… 2.4 C C J Belmore Pty Ltd v AGC (General Finance) Ltd [1976] 1 NSWLR 507 . … 3.15, 32.15 C L Nye Ltd, Re [1971] Ch 442 .… 11.39 C R Sawyer & Whithall, Solicitors, Re [1919] 2 Ch 333 .… 12.23 C2C Developments Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2012] NSWSC 1162; 16 BPR [98586] .… 39.1, 39.21 Cachalot Nominees Ltd Pty v Prime Nominees Pty Ltd [1984] WAR 380 .… 20.21 Caddick v Cook (1863) 32 Beav 70; 55 ER 27 .… 22.7, 33.2 Cadogan v Kennett (1776) 2 Cowp 432; 98 ER 1171 .… 13.7 Cadogan v Lyric Theatre Ltd [1894] 3 Ch 338 .… 18.21 Cadorange Pty Ltd v Tangea Holdings Pty Ltd (1990) 20 NSWLR 26 .… 2.52 Cairney v Back [1906] 2 KB 746 .… 8.19 Caldwell v Bridge Wholesale Acceptance Corp (Aust) Pty Ltd (1993) 6 BPR 13,539 .… 11.2, 30.4, 30.7, 30.8

Caldwell v Matthews (1890) 62 LT 799 .… 32.81, 32.82 Caldwell v Sumpters [1972] 1 Ch 478 .… 2.37 Caldy Manor Estate Ltd v Farrell [1974] 3 All ER 753 .… 13.50 Caleo Bros Pty Ltd v Lyons Bros (Aust) Pty Ltd (1980) 1 BPR 9496 .… 4.13 Calisher v Forbes (1871) 7 Ch App 109 .… 25.7, 25.13, 26.1 Callachor v Moses (1931) 31 SR (NSW) 424 .… 3.13 Caltex Oil (Aust) Pty Ltd v Feenan [1981] 1 NSWLR 169 .… 13.35 Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242 .… 2.9, 2.16 Calwell, Ex parte (1828) 1 Mol 259 .… 39.14 Cambrian Mining Co Ltd, Re; Ex parte Fell(1881) 50 LJ Ch 836 .… 20.36 Cambridge Acceptance Pty Ltd v Fetherston [1965] NSWR 1513 .… 12.13 Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd v Lissenden (1987) 8 NSWLR 411 .… 1.44 Cambridge Credit Corp Ltd v Lombard Australia Ltd (1977) 136 CLR 608; 14 ALR 420 .… 1.7, 3.14, 4.5, 17.2 Camco Inc v Frances Olson Realty (1979) Ltd (1986) 50 Sask R 161; 6 PPSAC 167 .… 5.102, 5.104 Cameron v Blau [1963] Qd R 421 .… 16.22 Cameron v Brisbane Fleet Sales Pty Ltd [2000] Q ConvR 54-540 .… 20.22, 20.29 Cameron v Brisbane Fleet Sales Pty Ltd [2002] Qd R 463 .… 20.22 Cameron’s Coalbrooke Rail Co, Re (1857) 25 Beav 1; 53 ER 535 .… 2.44 Camfield Pastoral Co v Dixon [1972] Qd R 289 .… 12.3, 19.5, 20.18 Camp v King (1887) 14 VLR 22 .… 6.9 Campbell, Re; Campbell v Campbell [1898] 2 Ch 206 .… 29.2, 29.3 Campbell v Bank of New South Wales (1883) 16 LR (NSW) Eq 285 .… 21.6 Campbell v Bank of New South Wales (1886) 11 App Cas 192 .… 21.6

Campbell v Campbell [1941] 1 All ER 274 .… 2.49, 2.51 Campbell v Canadian Co-operative Investment Co (1907) 5 WWR 153 .… 1.51 Campbell v Commercial Banking Co of Sydney (1879) 40 LT 137; 2 LR (NSW) 357 .… 17.9, 20.15 Campbell v Commercial Banking Co of Sydney (1881) 2 LR (NSW) (L) 397 .… 32.42 Campbell v Holyland (1877) 7 Ch D 166 .… 21.7, 22.6, 22.29, 22.35, 22.36, 33.5 Campbell v Hooper (1855) 3 Sm & G 153; 65 ER 603 .… 16.40 Campbell v Michale Mount PPB (1995) 16 ACSR 296 .… 8.21 Campbell v Moxhay (1854) 18 Jur 641 .… 22.31 Campion v Randwick Municipal Council (1933) 34 SR (NSW) 167 .… 16.1 Camp-Wee-Gee-Wa for Boys Ltd v Clark (1972) 23 DLR (3d) 158 .… 20.37, 32.43 Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v 64576 Manitoba Ltd (1990) 1 PPASC (2d) 1 .… 5.15 Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v 64576 Manitoba Ltd (1991) 77 DLR (4th) 190 .… 5.26 Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v AK Construction (1998) Ltd (1995) 171 AR 326 .… 5.121 Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Haley (1979) 100 DLR (3d) 470 .… 20.21 Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v International Harvester Credit Corp of Canada (1986) 6 PPSAC 273 .… 5.91 Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Melnitzer (Trustee of) (1993) 23 CBR (3d) 161; 6 PPSAC (2d) 5 .… 5.43, 5.72 Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Otto Timm Enterprises Ltd (1995) 130 DLR (4th) 91; 10 PPSAC (2d) 288 .… 5.35 Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Rehnby (1992) 22 RPC (2d) 93 .…

3.45 Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Skender [1986] 1 WWR 884 .… 3.33 Canberra Advance Bank Ltd v Benny (1992) 38 FCR 427; 9 ACSR 179 .… 16.8, 18.6, 18.7 Cane v Allen (1814) 2 Dow 289; 3 ER 869 .… 42.2 Cannan v Bryce (1819) 3 B & Ald 179; 106 ER 628 .… 13.46 Cannock v Jauncey (1857) 27 LJ Ch 57 .… 24.46 Cape v Trustees of Savings Bank of NSW (1893) 14 LR (NSW) (Eq) 33 .… 4.10, 32.38 Capell v Winter [1907] 2 Ch 376 .… 24.25, 24.30 Capital Access Australia Pty Ltd v Hraiki [2011] NSWSC 109; 15 BPR 29,113 .… 4.16 Capital and Counties Bank v Rhodes [1903] 1 Ch 631 .… 36.2 Capital Finance Co Ltd v Stokes [1969] 1 Ch 261; [1968] 3 All ER 625 .… 1.38, 1.35, 2.13, 2.14, 36.13, 36.15, 42.19 Capital Finance Australia Ltd v Struthers [2008] NSWSC 440; 14 BPR 26,179 .… 11.4, 14.17 Capital Fire Insurance Association, Re (1883) 24 Ch D 408 .… 2.39, 2.43, 2.47 Capital Plymouth Chrysler Inc v Euro Sport Auto Sales Ltd (1998) 12 PPSAC (2d) 30; 224 AR 298 .… 5.39 Capper v Terrington (1844) 1 Coll 103; 63 ER 340 .… 32.80, 40.15 Car v Boulter (1697) 2 Freeman Ch 217; 22 ER 1169 .… 33.16 Card v Jaffray (1805) 2 Sch & Lef 374 .… 1.25 Care Shipping Corp v Itex Itagrani Export SA [1993] QB 1 .… 11.39 Carello v Jordan [1935] St R Qd 294 .… 13.30, 13.32, 32.18 Caretta Stud Nominees Pty Ltd v White (1982) 29 SASR 597 .… 4.37

Carew Counsel Pty Ltd v French (2002) 4 VR 172 .… 2.48, 2.49, 2.50 Carew v Arundell (1861) 8 Jur NS 71 .… 3.49 Carew’s Estate, Re (1868) 16 WR 1077 .… 26.11 Carey v Doyne (1856) 5 Ir Ch Rep 104 .… 39.42 Carlisle Banking Co v Thompson (1884) 24 Ch D 398 .… 34.3 Carlon v Farlar (1845) 8 Beav 526; 50 ER 206 .… 22.15, 33.20 Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung v Herbert Smith and Co (No 2) [1969] 2 Ch 276; [1969] 2 All ER 367 .… 20.46 Carney v Herbert [1985] AC 301; [1985] 1 All ER 438 .… 13.46 Carolan v Yoran (1905) 93 NYS 935 .… 4.19 Carpentaria Investments Pty Ltd v Airs and Arnold [1972] Qd R 436 .… 32.21 Carpenter v Parker (1857) 3 CBNS 206; 140 ER 718 .… 12.22 Carpet Call Pty Ltd v Chan (1987) ATPR 46-205 .… 5.10 Carr, Re [1918] 2 IR 448 .… 1.23 Carreras Rothmans Ltd v Freeman Mathews Treasure Ltd [1985] Ch 207; [1985] 1 All ER 155 .… 2.2, 2.3 Carrick v Wigan Tramways Co [1893] WN [Eng] 98 .… 40.20 Carrington Confirmers Pty Ltd v Akins (23 April 1991, Giles J, unreported) . … 13.27 Carritt v Real and Personal Advance Co (1889) 42 Ch D 263 .… 24.30 Carroll’s Estate, Re [1901] I IR 78 .… 39.22 Carshalton Park Estate Ltd, Re; Graham v Carshalton Park Estate Ltd [1908] 2 Ch 62 .… 16.1 Carter, Re (1885) 53 LT 630 .… 2.35, 2.43 Carter v Barnadiston (1718) 1 P Wms 505; 24 ER 492 .… 30.2 Carter v Carter (1857) 3 K & J 591; 69 ER 1256 .… 24.6, 24.37 Carter v Carter (1885) 55 LJ Ch 230 .… 2.37

Carter v James (1881) 29 WR 437 .… 39.37 Carter v Palmer (1842) 1 Dr & War 722 .… 42.3 Carter v Palmer (1842) 8 Cl & Fin 657; 8 ER 256 .… 39.19 Carter v Sanders (1854) 2 Drew 248; 61 ER 714 .… 11.18 Carter v Tanners’ Leather Co (1907) 81 NE 902 .… 30.11 Carter v Wake (1877) 4 Ch D 605 .… 21.2, 21.3 Carter & Justins, Re; Ex parte Sheffield Union Banking Co (1865) 13 LT 477 .… 3.37 Casberd v AG (1819) 6 Price 411; 146 ER 850 .… 3.40 Casborne v Barsham (1839) 2 Beav 76; 48 ER 1108 .… 42.2 Casborne v Scarfe (1737) 1 Atk 603; 26 ER 377 .… 1.15, 32.4 Casella v Casella [1969] VR 49 .… 32.79 Casey v Irish Intercontinental Bank Ltd [1979] IR 364 .… 20.41 Casey’s Patents, Re; Stewart v Casey [1892] 1 Ch 104 .… 6.13 Cash Resources Australia Pty Ltd v BT Securities Ltd [1990] VR 576 .… 6.17, 24.25, 24.29, 24.37, 24.44, 26.12, 28.15, 28.16 Cash v Belcher (1842) 1 Hare 310; 66 ER 1051 .… 40.16 Castell and Brown Ltd, Re; Roper v The Company [1898] 1 Ch 315 .… 24.14, 24.45 Castellain v Preston (1883) 11 QBD 580 .… 3.20 Castellain v Thompson (1862) 13 CB (NS) 105; 143 ER 41 .… 2.24 Catley Farms Ltd v ANZ Banking Group (NZ) Ltd [1982] 1 NZLR 430 .… 3.14 Cato v Irving (1852) 5 De G & Sm 210; 64 ER 1084 .… 9.25 Caulfield v Maguire (1845) 2 Jo & Lat 141 .… 39.62 Cavander v Bulteel (1873) LR 9 Ch App 79 .… 24.21, 32.20 Cave v Cave (1880) 15 Ch D 639 .… 24.23, 24.25, 24.30

Cavendish v Cavendish (1885) 30 Ch D 227 .… 1.7 Cawdor v Lewis (1835) 1 Y & C Ex 427; 160 ER 174 .… 2.16 CBFC Finance v Dickinson [1992] ACL Rep 295 NSW 19 .… 9.4 CCG International Enterprises Ltd, Re [1993] BCLC 1428 .… 8.17 Cedar Holdings Ltd v Green [1981] Ch 129; [1979] 3 All ER 117 .… 3.49, 4.20, 13.44 Central Bank of India, Ex parte [1986] QB 1114 .… 11.40 Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130 . … 39.58 Central Mortgage and Housing Corp v Johnson (1971) 20 DLR (3d) 622 .… 40.1 Central Mortgage Registry of Australia Ltd v Donemore Pty Ltd [1984] 2 NSWLR 128 .… 4.25, 19.39, 24.33, 25.7, 25.8, 25.12, 25.16 Centrax Trustees Ltd v Ross [1979] 2 All ER 952 .… 19.12, 32.36 Chacmol Holdings Pty Ltd v Handberg (2005) 215 ALR 748 .… 3.8, 3.9 Challenge Bank Ltd v Hodgekiss (1995) 7 BPR 14,399 .… 32.42, 39.2 Challenger Managed Investments Ltd v Direct Money Corp Pty Ltd (2003) 12 BPR 22,257 .… 42.19 Challis v Casborn (1715) Prec Ch 407; 24 ER 183 .… 25.6 Chalmers v Pardoe [1963] 1 WLR 677; [1963] 3 All ER 552 .… 2.16, 35.12 Chambers v Goldwin (1804) 9 Ves 254; 32 ER 600 .… 14.1, 33.16, 39.20, 39.53 Chambers v Kingham (1878) 10 Ch D 743 .… 36.2 Chambers v Manchester & Milford Railway Co (1864) 10 Jur NS 700 .… 11.9 Champagne Perrier-Jouet SA v H H Finch Ltd [1982] 3 All ER 713; [1982] 1 WLR 1359 .… 2.18, 6.17, 20.6, 20.8, 26.12 Chan v Cresdon Pty Ltd (1989) 168 CLR 242 .… 19.11, 28.2

Chandler v Bradley [1897] 1 Ch 315 .… 12.24 Chant, Re [1905] 2 Ch 225 .… 16.33 Chant v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1991) 22 ATR 79 .… 4.7, 32.1 Chantry House Development plc, Re [1990] BCLC 813 .… 11.43 Chapleo v Brunswick Permanent Benefit Building Society (1881) 6 QBD 696 .… 11.33 Chaplin v Young (1864) 33 Beav 330; 55 ER 395 .… 19.31, 19.33 Chapman, Re 5 UCC Rep Serv 649 (1968) .… 5.44, 5.75 Chapman v Chapman (1851) 13 Beav 308; 51 ER 119 .… 3.40, 3.43 Chapman v Wade [1939] SASR 298 .… 20.6 Chappell v Rees (1852) 1 De GM & G 393; 42 ER 603 .… 30.5, 30.6, 33.26 Charge Card Services Ltd, Re [1987] Ch 150 .… 6.20 Charles v Day (1887) 35 Ch D 544 .… 4.25 Charles v Jones (1886) 33 Ch D 80 .… 40.6 Charles v Jones (1887) 35 Ch D 544 .… 10.12, 20.44, 39.44, 40.10, 40.17 Charlesworth v Mills [1892] AC 231 .… 5.43 Charlewood v Hammer (1884) 28 Sol Jo 710 .… 21.22 Charmelyn Enterprises Pty Ltd v Klonis (1981) 2 BPR 9527 .… 3.17, 17.2 Charter v Watson [1899] 1 Ch 175 .… 32.92 Charter Finance Pty Ltd v Abou-Antoun [2009]NSWSC 247 .… 16.37 Charters v The Cosmopolitan Land Banking Co Ltd (1902) 28 VLR 251 .… 21.4, 21.9, 22.15, 22.52 Chase Corporation (Australia) Pty Ltd v North Sydney Brick and Tile Co Ltd (1994) 35 NSWLR 1; 14 ACSR 586 .… 2.18, 6.17, 11.10, 25.7, 25.12, 25.13, 30.4, 30.5, 30.9, 30.10, 30.12 Chase Manhattan Asia Ltd v Official Receiver etc of First Bangkok City Finance Ltd [1988] 2 HKLR 618 .… 1.25 Chase Manhattan Asia Ltd v Official Receiver etc of First Bangkok City

Finance Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 1181 .… 1.25, 1.27 Chase Manhattan Bank v Gems-By-Gordon 649F (2d) 710 (9th Cir) (1981) . … 2.5 Chase Manhattan Bank NA v Israel-British Bank (London) Ltd [1981] Ch 105; [1979] 3 All ER 1025 .… 32.40 Chase Manhattan Bank NA v Wong Tui San (1992) 11 ACLC 3112 .… 6.16 Chase v Box (1702) Freem Ch 261; 22 ER 1197 .… 32.51 Chase v Westmore (1816) 5 M & S 180; 105 ER 1016 .… 2.49 Chasteauneuf v Capeyron (1882) 7 App Cas 127 .… 6.2, 6.15, 9.15, 9.28 Chatham Empire Theatre (1955) Ltd v Ultrans [1961] 1 WLR 817; [1961] 2 All ER 381 .… 37.11 Chatsworth Properties Ltd v Effiom [1971] 1 All ER 604; [1971] 1 WLR 144 .… 12.19, 18.8 Chatterton v Maclean [1951] 1 All ER 761 .… 35.8 Chatterton v Watney (1881) 17 Ch D 259 .… 7.14, 20.47 Chattis Nominees Pty Ltd v Norman Ross Homeworks Pty Ltd (1992) 28 NSWLR 338 .… 1.49 Cheah Theam Swee v Equiticorp Finance Group Ltd [1992] 1 AC 472 .… 3.34, 3.35, 32.20 Cheah v Equiticorp Finance Group Ltd [1991] 4 All ER 989 .… 24.3 Cheak Theam Swee v Equiticorp Finance Group Ltd [1992] 1 AC 472; [1991] 4 All ER 989 .… 32.12 Cheatley v R (1972) 127 CLR 291 .… 37.14 Cheese v Keen [1908] 1 Ch 245 .… 39.3 Chelsea Estates Investment Trust Co Ltd v Marche [1955] Ch 328 .… 3.27, 37.11 Cheltenham and Gloucester Building Society v Grattridge [1993] TLR 216 . … 20.24 Cheltenham and Gloucester plc v Appleyard [2004] EWCA Civ 291 .…

2.14, 17.12, 42.19 Cheltenham and Glouster plc v Krausz [1997] 1 WLR 1558; [1997] 1 All ER 21 .… 21.21, 21.23 Chennell, Re; Jones v Chennell (1878) 8 Ch D 492 .… 40.6 Chesters, Re; Whittingham v Chesters [1935] Ch 77 .… 36.5 Cheston v Wells [1893] 2 Ch 151 .… 22.37, 39.41 Chesworth v Hunt (1880) 5 CPD 266 .… 31.1, 31.7, 33.13 Chetwynd v Allen [1899] 1 Ch 353 .… 14.6, 42.18 Chia v Rennie (1997) 8 BPR 15,601 .… 4.39, 20.37 Chichester v Marquis of Donegall (1870) 5 Ch App 497 .… 3.32 Chidley, Re; Re Lennard (1875) 1 Ch D 177 .… 23.5 Chief Commissioner of Stamp Duties v Buckle (1998) 192 CLR 226; 151 ALR1 .… 2.18 Chiips Inc v Skyview Hotels Ltd (1994) 155 AR 281 .… 5.91 China and South Sea Bank Ltd v Tan Soon Gin [1990] 1 AC 536; [1989] 3 All ER 839 .… 16.7, 20.21, 20.22, 20.23, 21.21, 42.15 Chinnery v Evans (1864) 11 HL Cas 115 .… 16.33 Chissum v Dewes (1828) 5 Russ 29; 38 ER 938 .… 1.23, 3.42, 40.18 Cholmley v Countess of Oxford (1741) 2 Atk 267; 26 ER 565 .… 21.4, 33.10, 33.25 Cholmondeley (Marquis) v Clinton (Lord) (1817) 2 Mer 171; 35 ER 905 .… 19.12 Cholmondeley v Clinton (1820) 2 Jac & W 1 at 134; 37 ER 527 .… 19.41, 21.13, 33.3 Christian v Field (1842) 2 Hare 177; 67 ER 74 .… 32.26 Christie, Re (1968) 11 FLR 390 .… 27.15 Christmas v Christmas (1725) Cas t King 20; 25 ER 199 .… 30.7 Christy v Van Tromp [1886] WN 111 .… 21.23

Chrysler Corp v Adamatic Inc 208 NW 2d 92(1973) .… 5.104 Chubb Insurance Co of Australia Ltd v Moore [2013] NSWCA 212 .… 6.3 Chung Khiaw Bank Ltd v United Overseas Bank [1970] AC 767 .… 7.8 Church of England Building Society v Piskor [1954] Ch 553 .… 5.79, 12.21 Chute’s Estate, Re [1914] 1 IR 180 .… 25.15, 30.9 CIBC Mortgages plc v Pitt [1994] 1 AC 200; [1993] 4 All ER 433 .… 13.16, 13.17, 13.20, 13.22, 13.24 CIC Insurance Ltd, Re (2001) 38 ACSR 181 .… 11.35 CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club (1997) 187 CLR 384 .… 5.5 Cid v Cortes (1987) 4 BPR 9391 .… 4.28 Cinema Plus Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2000) 49 NSWLR 513 .… 1.9, 1.48, 6.20, 8.9, 8.11, 8.18 Citibank Pty Ltd v Simon Fredericks Pty Ltd (1991) V ConvR 54-408 .… 6.8, 12.13, 12.17, 19.2 Citibank Pty Ltd v Simon Fredericks Pty Ltd [1993] 2 VR 168 .… 1.51 Citibank Savings Ltd v Stergiou (1996) 66 FCR 587; 145 ALR 80 .… 4.2, 4.21, 19.5, 19.7, 19.8 Citibank Trust Ltd v Ayivor [1987] 3 All ER 241; [1987] 1 WLR 1157 .… 19.23 Citicorp Australia Ltd v McLoughney (1984) 35 SASR 375 .… 20.21 Citicorp Australia Ltd v O’Brien (1996) 40 NSWLR 398 .… 13.36, 38.6 Citicorp Australia Ltd v Syndal Securities Pty Ltd (SC (Qld), 21 Jun 1985, McPherson J, unreported) .… 25.13 Citizens Bank and Trust v Gibson Lumber Co (1989) 96 BR 751 .… 5.38 Citizens Bank of Americus v Federal Financial Services, Inc 235 Ga App 482 (1998) .… 5.87 City Bank of Sydney v McLaughlin (1909) 9 CLR 615 .… 11.20 City Life Assurance Co Ltd, Re; Stephenson’s case [1926] Ch 191 .… 1.53

City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd v Lance Creek Meat Works Pty Ltd [1976] VR 1 .… 12.3, 12.11, 12.18, 19.7, 19.10, 19.25, 28.4 City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd v Smith (1932) 48 CLR 532 .… 1.7, 15.1 City of London Building Society v Flegg [1988] AC 54 .… 24.1, 24.5, 24.21 City of South Melbourne v Taylor (1891) 17 VLR 167 .… 19.39 City of Sydney Real Estate Co Ltd, Re (1928) 29 SR (NSW) 80 .… 2.18 City Permanent Building Society v Miller [1952] Ch 840 .… 12.21 City Securities Pte, Re; Ho Mun-Tuke Don v Dresdner Bank AG [1990] 2 MLJ 257 .… 6.16 Cityland and Property (Holdings) Ltd v Dabrah [1968] Ch 166; [1967] 2 All ER 639 .… 3.13, 3.15, 13.14, 17.2, 19.13, 32.12, 32.14, 32.15, 32.17, 32.40, 39.42, 39.43, 39.57 Claire, Re (1889) 23 LR Ir 281 .… 22.42 Clare Morris Ltd v Hunter BNZ Finance Ltd (1988) 4 BPR 9609 .… 17.9, 20.15 Clark, Re; Ex parte Newland (1876) 4 Ch D515 .… 2.35 Clark v Crownshaw (1832) 3 B & Ad 804; 110 ER 295 .… 1.20 Clark v Hoskins (1868) 37 LJ Ch 561 .… 40.23 Clark v National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd [1966] NZLR 196 .… 16.10 Clark v Raymor (Brisbane) Pty Ltd [1982] Qd R 479 .… 11.4 Clark v Raymor (Brisbane) Pty Ltd (No 2)[1982] Qd R 790 .… 1.34, 4.24, 28.15 Clark v Vile (1969) 209 EG 169 .… 3.16 Clark v Wilmot (1841) 1 Y & C Ch Cas 53;62 ER 787 .… 39.11 Clark v Woor [1965] 2 All ER 353 .… 16.36 Clark Boyce v Mouat [1994] 1 AC 428 .… 42.7

Clark Equipment of Canada Ltd v Bank of Montreal (1984) 8 DLR (4th) 424 .… 5.38 Clarke, Re (1887) 35 Ch D 109 .… 1.34, 1.39 Clarke, Re; Coombe v Carter (1887) 36 Ch D 348 .… 1.34, 1.41 Clarke, Re; Ex parte East and West India Dock Co (1881) 17 Ch D 759 .… 23.14 Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404 .… 17.9, 20.15, 20.36, 20.37 Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2) [1984] 1 Qd R 421 .… 20.38, 20.42 Clarke v Lord Abingdon (1810) 17 Ves 106;34 ER 41 .… 39.48 Clarke v Palmer (1882) 21 Ch D 124 .… 24.41 Clarke v Pannell (1884) 29 Sol Jo 147 .… 21.21 Clark’s Refrigerated Transport Pty Ltd (in liq), Re [1982] VR 989 .… 3.8, 3.14, 17.2, 25.15 Clarkson v Mutual Life Association of Australasia (1879) 5 QSCR 165 .… 4.23, 4.25, 4.31 Classic Heights Pty Ltd v Black Hole Investments Pty Ltd (1994) V ConvR 54-506 .… 4.27 Clay v—(1745) 9 Sim 317n; 59 ER 380 .… 22.29 Clayton v Clayton [1930] 2 Ch 12 .… 3.31, 4.31 Clayton v Vincents’s Products Ltd (1934) 34 SR(NSW) 214 .… 6.25 Clayton’s case (1816) 1 Mer 572; 35 ER 781 .… 30.9 Clements v Ellis (1934) 51 CLR 217 .… 4.11, 4.38 Clifden (Lord), Re; Annaly v Agar-Ellis [1900] 1 Ch 774 .… 16.33, 16.35 Cliff v Wadsworth (1843) 2 Y & CCC 598; 63 ER 268 .… 32.49, 40.9, 40.13 Clifford v Turrill (1848) 2 De G & Sm 1; 64 ER 1 .… 2.43 Clifford Harris & Co v Solland International Ltd [2005] 2 All ER 334 .…

2.37 Cliffshaw Pty Ltd v Old Kiama Wharf Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 276 .… 20.8 Clifton Securities Ltd v Huntley [1948] 2 All ER 283 .… 19.19, 29.20 Clinton v Hooper (1791) 3 Bro CC 201; 29 ER 49 .… 30.7 Close v Phipps (1844) 7 Man & G 586; 135 ER 236 .… 32.40 Close Asset Finance Ltd v Derek Allan Taylor [2006] EWCA 788 .… 39.11 Clough Mill Ltd v Martin [1984] 3 All ER 982; [1985] 1 WLR 111 .… 8.13 Clough v Dixon (1841) 10 Sim 564; 59 ER 235 .… 33.4 Clough v Samuel [1905] AC 442 .… 13.7 Clowes v Hughes (1870) LR 5 Exch 160 .… 12.10 Clyde Properties Ltd v Tasker [1970] NZLR 754 .… 17.9, 20.15 Clydesdale v McManus (1934) 36 WALR 89 .… 18.23 Clyne v FCT (1981) 150 CLR 1 .… 8.11, 8.21 CNG Co (Aust) Pty Ltd v ANZ Banking GroupLtd [1992] ACL Rep 185 NSW 3; (1992) 6 BPR 97434 .… 3.36 Coal Cliff Collieries Pty Ltd v Sijehama Pty Ltd (1991) 28 NSWLR 1 .… 1.41 Coast Realities Ltd v Nolan (1972) 20 DLR (3d) 96 .… 16.11 Coast Securities No 9 Pty Ltd v Bondoukou Pty Ltd (1986) 61 ALJR 285; 69 ALR 385 .… 25.3 Cobbett v Brock (1855) 20 Beav 524; 52 ER 706 .… 16.39 Cochrane v Cochrane (1985) 3 NSWLR 403 .… 14.6, 36.9, 42.18 Cockburn v Edwards (1881) 18 Ch D 449 .… 19.30, 32.53, 39.55, 42.3, 42.4 Cockcroft, Re; Broadbent v Groves (1883) 24 Ch D 94 .… 29.2 Cockell v Taylor (1882) 15 Beav 475; 51 ER 475 .… 14.2 Cocker v Bevis (1665) 1 Cas in Ch 61; 22 ER 695 .… 22.35 Cockes v Sherman (1676) Freem Ch 13; 22 ER 1026 .… 22.6

Cocks v Gray (1857) 1 Giff 77; 65 ER 831 .… 19.37 Cocks v Stanley (1857) 4 Jur NS 942 .… 40.13 Coco v R (1994) 179 CLR 427 .… 5.4 Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337 .… 1.25, 3.6, 3.7 Codrington v Johnstone (1838) 1 Beav 520; 48 ER 1042 .… 39.18 Coggs v Barnard (1703) 2 Ld Raym 909; 92 ER 107 .… 1.11 Cohen, Re [1960] Ch 179 .… 29.2 Cohen v Mitchell (1890) 25 QBD 262 .… 11.22, 26.6 Cohen and Cohen, Re [1905] 2 Ch 137 .… 40.31 Coldunell Ltd v Gallon [1986] QB 1184; [1986] 1 All ER 429 .… 13.18 Cole v Blake (1793) Peake 238; 170 ER 142 .… 32.47 Cole v Muddle (1852) 10 Hare 186; 68 ER 892 .… 11.18 Coleby v Coleby (1866) LR 2 Eq 803 .… 29.2 Coleman v De Lissa (1885) 6 LR (NSW) Eq 104 .… 4.7, 24.49, 24.51 Coleman v Llewellin (1886) 34 Ch D 143 .… 39.37, 39.41 Coleman v London County and Westminster Bank Ltd [1906] 2 Ch 353 .… 24.30 Coleman v Mellersh (1850) 2 Mac & G 309; 42 ER 119 .… 39.3 Coleman v Winch (1721) 1 P Wms 775; 24 ER 609 .… 25.6 Coles v Forrest (1847) 10 Beav 552; 50 ER 694 .… 33.5, 40.15 Coles Myer Finance Ltd v FCT (1993) 176 CLR 640 .… 41.3 Colin D Young Pty Ltd v Commercial and General Acceptance Ltd (1982) Conveyancing Service (NSW) [92179]; (1982) NSW ConvR 55-097 .… 20.6, 20.20, 20.32, 39.1 Collection Point Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2012) 129 ALD 263; [2012] FCA 720 .… 5.4 Collection Point Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2013) 212 FCR 184;

[2013] FCAFC 67 .… 5.4 Collie, Re; Ex parte Manchester and County Bank (1876) 3 Ch D 481 .… 23.8 Collier v Morlend Finance (Victoria) Pty Ltd [1989] NSW Conv R 55-473; [1989] ASC 55-716 .… 13.34 Collins, Re (1982) 140 DLR (3d) 755 .… 3.45 Collins, Re [1925] Ch 556 .… 6.19, 6.23 Collins v Lamport (1865) 34 LJ Ch 196 .… 9.16 Collins v Parker (1984) NSW ConvR 55-212 .… 38.6 Collins v Plumber (1709) 1 P Wms 104; 24 ER 313 .… 2.7 Collins v Shirley (1830) 1 Russ & M 638; 39 ER 245 .… 22.9, 33.27 Collinson v Jeffery [1896] 1 Ch 644 .… 22.36, 33.23 Collyer v Isaacs (1881) 19 Ch D 342 .… 6.23 Colmer v Ede (1870) 40 LJ Ch 185 .… 2.35 Colnbrook Chemical and Explosives Co, Re; A-G v Colnbrook Chemical and Explosives Co [1923] 2 Ch 289 .… 19.21, 39.25 Colonial Bank of Australasia v Kerr (1889) 15 VLR 314 .… 32.52 Colonial Bank of Australasia v Riddel (1893) 19 VLR 280 .… 4.24, 24.51 Colonial Bank v Cady (1890) 15 App Cas 267 .… 6.17 Colonial Bank v Roache (1870) 1 VR (L) 165 .… 4.10, 19.10 Colonial Bank v Whinney (1886) 11 App Cas 426 .… 26.12 Colonial Mutual Insurance Co Ltd v ANZ Banking Group (NZ) Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 1140; [1995] 3 All ER 987 .… 3.20 Colonial Trusts Corp, Re; Ex parte Bradshaw (1879) 15 Ch D 465 .… 8.12, 8.19 Color Leasing 3 v Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 975 F Supp 177 . … 5.87 Color Point Pty Ltd v Mrkby’s Communication Group Pty Ltd (Federal

Court of Australia, Weinberg J, 27 November 1998, unreported) .… 2.48 Colquhoun v Brooks (1888) 21 QBD 52 .… 5.42 Coltman v Chamberlain (1890) 25 QBD 328 .… 9.15 Colyer v Finch (1854) 19 Beav 500; 52 ER 445 .… 24.36 Colyer v Finch (1856) 5 HL Cas 905; 10 ER 1159 .… 11.24, 24.36, 30.15 Combined Weighing & Advertising Machine Co, Re (1889) 43 Ch D 99 .… 7.14 Comfort v Betts [1891] 1 QB 737 .… 6.5 Coming, Ex parte (1803) 9 Ves 115; 32 ER 545 .… 3.41 Commercial and General Acceptance Ltd v Nixon (1981) 152 CLR 491 .… 20.21, 20.22, 20.23, 20.27, 20.28, 20.30, 20.32, 20.33, 20.35 Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447 .… 1.6, 13.16, 13.18, 13.30, 13.31, 13.32, 13.33, 13.39 Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Schierholter [1981] VR 292 .… 20.49, 27.3 Commercial Bank v Breen (1889) 15 VLR572 .… 19.7 Commercial Bank of Tasmania v Jones [1893] AC 313 .… 35.9 Commercial Banking Co of Sydeny Ltd v Love (1974) 133 CLR 459 .… 41.9 Commercial Banking Co of Sydney Ltd v Gaty [1978] 2 NSWLR 271 .… 35.10 Commercial Banking Co of Sydney Ltd v George Hudson Pty Ltd (1973) 131 CLR 605 .… 11.43 Commercial Factors Ltd v Maxwell Printing Ltd [1994] 1 NZLR 724 .… 6.9 Commissioner for Government Transport v Pacific Acceptance Corp Ltd (1964) 82 WN (Pt 1)(NSW) 71 .… 4.10 Commissioner of Stamp Duties v Bone [1977] AC 577 .… 34.2 Commissioner of Taxation v Gloxinia Investments (Trustee) (2010) 183 FLR 420; [2010] FCAFC 46 .… 5.79

Commissioner of Taxation v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1992) 36 FCR 314; 109 ALR 159 .… 2.9, 2.50 Commissioner of Taxation v ICI Australia Ltd (1971–72) 127 CLR 529 .… 5.4 Commissioner of Taxation v Lai Corp Pty Ltd (1986) 83 FLR 63 .… 8.18 Commissioners of the State Bank of Victoria v Judson (1985) ACLC 576 .… 8.24 Commissioners of the State Savings Bank of Victoria v Millane [1931] VLR 18 .… 12.11 Commodore Pty Ltd v Perpetual Trustees Estates Agency Co of New Zealand Ltd [1984] 1 NZLR 324 .… 17.9 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Aspenview Productions Pty Ltd [2001] VSC 444 .… 3.9 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Baranyay [1993] 1 VR 589 .… 12.13, 12.18, 12.19, 12.24, 12.26, 19.4 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Bird (2011) 15 BPR 29,471 .… 19.6 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Bowman [2003] WASC 205 .… 19.22 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Buffett (SC (Norfolk Is), Morling J, 1 April 1993, unreported) .… 20.8 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Butterell (1994) 35 NSWLR 64; 14 ACSR 343 .… 1.11, 2.52 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Duggan [2003] FCAFC 64 .… 20.5, 20.6 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Figgins Holdings Pty Ltd [1994] 2 VR 505 .… 12.13, 12.18, 19.4, 19.7, 19.25, 28.4 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Fitzpatrick [2013] NSWSC 169 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Graham [1995] ATPR 41-387 .… 13.2 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Green (CA (NSW), 24 September 1997, unreported) .… 24.44 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Grubic (SC (SA), 27 August 1993,

unreported, FC; noted (1993) 1 APLJ) .… 25.7, 25.12, 25.16 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Hadfield (2001) 53 NSWLR 614 .… 19.34, 39.2 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Hadfield [2005] NSWCA 350 .… 5.25, 20.21 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Horvath [1996] ANZ Conv R 501 .… 2.13, 2.18 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Jackson (1992) V ConvR 54-447 .… 19.2, 19.7, 19.22, 20.15 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Lee (1996) 22 ACSR 574 .… 20.21 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Muirhead [1997] 1 Qd R 567 .… 20.22 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Platzer [1997] 1 Qd R 266 .… 24.9 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Saunders (1995) 64 SASR 428 .… 3.13, 17.8, 19.2 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Trellis Holdings Ltd (1995) 19 ACSR 319; 14 ACLC 650 .… 9.12 Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia v Inglis [1966] Tas SR 104 .… 12.9, 12.11 Commonwealth Trading Bank v Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd [1970] Tas SR 120; (1970) 26 FLR 338 .… 30.9, 30.10, 30.16 Commonwealth v Orr (1981) 37 ALR 653 .… 12.18, 12.19, 12.20, 12.21, 12.24, 12.26, 19.30 Commonwealth v Orr (1981) 40 ACTR 21 .… 12.18, 12.19, 12.20, 12.21 Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394 .… 16.7, 34.6, 35.1 Community Futures Development Corp of Howe Sound v Spargo (2000) 1 PPSAC (3d) 263 .… 5.38 Compania Colombiana de Seguros v Pacific Steam Navigation Co [1905] 1 QB 101; [1964] 1 All ER 216 .… 6.4, 6.7, 7.2, 6.9 Compania de Electricidad de la Provincia de Buenos Aires Ltd, Re [1980] Ch 146; [1978] 3 All ER 668 .… 16.28, 16.34

Composite Buyers Ltd v Soong (1995) 38 NSWLR 286 .… 4.27 Composite Buyers Ltd v State Bank of NSW (1990) 3 ACSR 196 .… 5.79 Composite Buyers Ltd v State Bank of New South Wales [1991] ACL Rep 295 NSW 1 .… 8.19 Congresbury Motors Ltd v Anglo-Belge Finance Co Ltd [1970] Ch 294; [1969] 3 All ER 545 .… 39.57 Coni v Robertson [1969] 2 All ER 609; [1969] 1 WLR 1007 .… 33.11 Conn, Re 16 BR 454 .… 5.85, 5.86 Connolly Bros Ltd (No 2), Re; Wood v Connolly Bros Ltd [1912] 2 Ch 25 . … 5.79, 8.19, 12.21 Connolly v Barter [1904] 1 IR 130 .… 36.8 Connolly v Noone and Cairns Timber Ltd (1912) St R Qd 70 .… 28.16 Connolly v Ryan (1922) 30 CLR 498 .… 12.3, 12.18, 19.4, 19.7, 19.25 Conroy, Re (1990) 103 FLR 233 .… 2.43 Conroy v Knox (1901) 11 QLJ 112 .… 20.40 Consolidated Goldfields of South Africa v Simmer and Jack East Ltd (1913) 82 LJ Ch 214 .… 8.2 Consolidated Trust Co Ltd v Naylor (1936) 55 CLR 423 .… 4.12, 4.13, 6.7, 14.5, 17.5, 34.3 Consul Development Pty Ltd v DPC Estates Pty Ltd (1975) 132 CLR 373 . … 13.46, 24.20 Contemporary Cottages (NZ) Ltd v MarginTraders Ltd [1981] 2 NZLR 114 . … 6.5, 6.19 Contractors Bonding Ltd v Snee [1992] 2 NZLR 157 .… 13.18, 13.20, 13.31 Cook, Re; Ex parte Hodgson (1821) 1 Gl & J 12 .… 1.40, 23.5 Cook v Bank of New South Wales (1982) 2 BPR 9580 .… 17.7 Cook v Fowler (1874) LR 7 HL 27 .… 1.40, 39.43 Cook v Guerra (1872) LR 7 CP 132 .… 12.7, 12.13

Cook v Hart (1871) LR 12 Eq 459 .… 21.16, 40.18 Cook v Thomas (1876) 24 WR 427 .… 19.31 Cooke v Brown (1840) 4 Y & C Ex 227; 160 ER 989 .… 40.13 Cooke v Clayworth (1811) Ves Jun 12 .… 13.30 Cooke v Poole [1885] WN (Eng) 15 .… 11.6 Cooke v Wilton (1860) 29 Beav 100; 59 ER 564 .… 25.4 Cooksey, Re; Ex parte Portal & Co (1900) 83 LT 435 .… 23.8 Cookson v Lee (1853) 23 LJ Ch 473 .… 24.6 Coombe, Ex parte (1810) 17 Ves 369; 34 ER 142 .… 3.40 Coombe v Stewart (1851) 13 Beav 111; 51 ER 44 .… 22.32 Coomber v Curry (1993) V ConvR 54-464 .… 4.11 Coombs and Freshfield and Fernley, Re (1850) 4 Ex 839; 154 ER 1456 .… 2.22 Coomer, Re 8 BR 351 (1980) .… 5.84, 5.85 Cooper, Re; Cooper v Vesey (1882) 20 Ch D 611 .… 13.43, 27.15, 33.4 Cooper v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1958) 100 CLR 131 .… 36.17 Cooper v Jenkins (1863) 32 Beav 337; 55 ER 435 .… 42.13 Cooper v Stephenson (1852) 16 Jur 424 .… 42.4 Cooper and Allen’s Contract, Re (1876) 4 Ch D802 .… 20.6 Co-operative Farmers & Graziers Direct Meat Supply Ltd v Smart [1977] VR 386 .… 18.25 Coote v Mammon (1724) 5 Bro Parl Cas 355; 2 ER 727 .… 24.7 Cope v Cope (circa 1710) 2 Salk 449; 91 ER 389 .… 30.3 Copis v Middleton (1818) 2 Madd 410; 56 ER 386 .… 33.14 Coptic Ltd v Bailey [1972] Ch 446 .… 2.14 Corbett v Hallifax plc [2003] 4 All ER 180; [2003] 1 WLR 964 .… 20.40 Corbett v National Provident Association (1900) 17 TLR 5 .… 32.80

Corbett v Plowden (1884) 25 Ch D 678 .… 12.18, 12.19, 19.30 Corbett v Sullivan (1898) 19 ALT 177; 4 ALR 38 .… 17.1, 39.42, 39.57 Corder v Morgan (1811) 18 Ves 344; 34 ER 347 .… 20.1, 20.19 Corello v Jordan [1935] St R Qd 294 .… 14.1 Corin v Patton (1990) 169 CLR 540 .… 3.32, 6.11, 11.4 Cork and Youghall Railway Co, Re (1860) LR 4 Ch App 748 .… 42.19 Cornbrook Brewery Co Ltd v Law Debenture Corp Ltd [1904] 1 Ch 103 .… 11.42 Cornish v Midland Bank plc [1985] 3 All ER 513 .… 13.22 Cornish v Searell (1828) 8 B & C 471; 108 ER 1118 .… 12.11 Coronation Street Industrial Properties Ltd v Ingall Industries plc [1989] 1 All ER 979; [1989] 1 WLR 304 .… 19.40 Coroneo v Australian Provincial Assurance Association Ltd (1935) 35 SR (NSW) 391 .… 20.1, 20.20, 20.39, 39.2, Coronet Homes Pty Ltd v Bankstown Finance & Investment Co Pty Ltd [1966] 2 NSWR 351 .… 3.11 Corozo Pty Ltd v Total Australia Ltd [1987] 2 Qd R 11 .… 1.34, 8.14, 31.4 Corozo Pty Ltd v Total Australia Ltd [1988] 2 Qd R 366 .… 1.33, 1.34, 8.14 Corozo Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp [1987] 2 Qd R 311 .… 32.56 Corozo Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp [1988] 2 Qd R 481 .… 32.56 Corpers (No 664) Pty Ltd v NZI Securities Australia Ltd (1989) NSW ConvR 55-475 .… 1.41, 35.12 Corsellis v Patman (1867) LR 4 Eq 156 .… 22.43 Corser v Cartwright (1875) LR 7 HL 731 .… 11.16 Cory Bros & Co v Mecca Turkish SS (Owners); The Mecca [1897] AC 286 . … 32.54 Cory v Eyre (1863) 1 De GJ & Sm 149; 46 ER 58 .… 11.24, 24.25, 24.45, 28.16

Coshott v Learoyd [2001] FCA 88 .… 7.14 Cosser v Collinge (1832) 3 My & K 283; 40 ER 108 .… 24.19 Cossill v Strangman (1962) 80 WN (NSW) 628 .… 6.4, 6.9 Cosslett (Contractors) Ltd, Re [1998] Ch 495; [1997] 4 All ER 115 .… 1.4, 2.3, 8.11, 8.13, 11.41 Costain Australia Ltd v Superior Pipe Installations Pty Ltd [1975] 1 NSWLR 491 .… 7.10 Cotgrave v Cotgrave [1992] Fam 33; [1991] 4 All ER 537 .… 13.49 Cotham v West, Rolls, Nov 15 1839, Reg Lib .… 39.40 Cottee Dairy Products Pty Ltd v Minad Pty Ltd (1997) 8 BPR 15,611 .… 4.12 Cotterell v Price [1960] 3 All ER 315; [1960] 1 WLR 1097 .… 16.29, 16.32, 16.33, 16.35, 32.92 Cotterell v Purchase (1734) Cas Temp Talb 61; 25 ER 663 .… 1.28 Cotterell v Stratton (1872) 8 Ch App 295 .… 40.1, 40.11 Cotterell v Stratton (1874) LR 17 Eq 543 .… 40.1, 40.2 Cottey v National Provincial Bank of England Ltd (1904) 48 Sol Jo 589 .… 24.37 Cottingham v Earl of Shrewsbury (1843) 3 Hare 627; 67 ER 530 .… 22.20, 33.25, 39.9 Cotton v Heyl [1930] 1 Ch 510 .… 6.11 Cottrell v Finney (1874) LR 9 Ch App 541 .… 14.1, 39.53 Cottrill v Steyning & Littlehampton Building Society [1966] 2 All ER 295 . … 1.41 Coughlan v George (2003) 11 BPR 20,919 .… 39.43, 39.60 Couldery v Bartrum (1881) 19 Ch D 394 .… 23.8 Coulls v Bagot’s Executor and Trustee Co Ltd (1967) 119 CLR 460 .… 6.5, 7.3, 30.2

Council of the Law Institute of Victoriav Martin (1992) ConvR 54-449 .… 42.2 Countess of Shrewsbury v Earl of Shrewsbury (1790) 3 Bro CC 120; 29 ER 445 .… 36.5 Country Banking Corporation v Dean [1998] AC 338 .… 5.104 Country Stores Pty Ltd, Re [1987] 2 Qd R318 .… 13.7 Countrywide Banking Corp v Robinson [1991] 1 NZLR 75 .… 20.21 County of Gloucester Bank v Rudry Merthyr Steam and House Coal Colliery Co [1895] 1 Ch 629 .… 1.23, 19.31, 19.34, 39.33 Courtenay v Austin (1961) 78 WN (NSW) 1082 .… 28.4 Courtenay v Wright (1860) 2 Giff 337; 66 ER 141 .… 32.73 Courtier, Re; Coles v Courtier (1886) 34 Ch D 136 .… 11.12 Courtney v Taylor (1843) 6 Man & G 851; 134 ER 1135 .… 17.4 Cousins, Re (1886) 31 Ch D 671 .… 24.22, 42.5 Couston, Re; Ex parte Watkins [1873] LR 8 Ch 520 .… 5.43 Coutts & Co v Somerville [1935] Ch 438 .… 12.23, 12.24 Covacich v Riodan [1994] 2 NZLR 502 .… 8.20 Coventry Permanent Economic Building Society v Jones [1951] 1 All ER 901 .… 12.21 Cowburn, Re; Ex parte Firth (1882) 19 Ch D 419 .… 3.21, 40.24, 42.1 Cowderoy, Re; Ex parte Martin (1835) 2 Mont & A 243 .… 3.43 Cowdry v Day (1859) 1 Giff 316; 65 ER 936 .… 42.4 Cowell v Simpson (1809) 16 Ves 275; 33 ER 989 .… 2.32 Cowell v Stacey (1887) 13 VLR 80 .… 28.7 Cowper v Green (1841) 7 M & W 633; 151 ER 920 .… 34.2 Cowper v Smith (1838) 4 M & W 519; 150 ER 1534 .… 35.8 Cox v Dublin City Distillery Co Ltd (No 3) [1917] 1 IR 203 .… 22.5

Cox v Esanda Finance [2000] NSWSC 502 .… 20.8 Cox v Hickman (1860) 8 HL Cas 268; 11 ER 431 .… 6.22 Cox v Watson (1877) 7 Ch D 196 .… 22.47 Cox and Neve, Re [1891] 2 Ch 109 .… 24.15 Cox Moore v Peruvian Corporation Ltd [1908] 1 Ch 604 .… 8.16, 8.18 Cracknall v Janson (1877) 6 Ch D 735 .… 36.12 Cracknall v Janson (1879) 11 Ch D 1 .… 31.5, 31.7, 31.8, 31.10 Craddick v Cook (1863) 9 Jur NS 454 .… 33.3 Cradock v Rogers (1884) 53 LJ Ch 968 .… 42.4 Cradock v Scottish Provident Institution (1893) 69 LT 380 .… 1.34, 2.3, 2.7 Cradock v Scottish Provident Institution (1894) 70 LT 718 .… 1.34, 1.40, 2.3, 2.7 Crago v Multiquip (1998) ATPR 41-620 .… 5.10 Cragg v Taylor (1866) LR 1 Ex 148 .… 7.8 Craigie v Champion Mortgages Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 15 .… 9.12 Craine v Colonial Mutual Fire Insurance Co Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 305 .… 35.5 Crampton v Frenchy [1996] ANZ ConvR 156 .… 4.27 Crawshay v Homfray (1820) 4 B & Ald 50; 106 ER 856 .… 2.49 Creasey’s Grain Enterprises Pty Ltd v Clarke and Barwood Lawyers Colac Ltd [2004] VSC 77 .… 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 Credit Suisse Canada v 1133 Yonge Street Holdings Ltd (1996) 28 OR (3d) 670; 11 PPSAC (2d) 375 .… 5.35 Credit Suisse Canada v 1133 Yonge Street Holdings Ltd (1998) 114 OAC 296; 14 PPSAC (2d) 61 (Ont CA) .… 5.26, 5.35, 5.116 Credland v Potter (1874) 10 Ch App 8 .… 40.11 Crenver etc Mining Co Ltd v Willyams (1866) 35 Beav 353; 55 ER 932 .… 33.9 Crescendo Management Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp (1988) 19

NSWLR 40 .… 13.38 Cresswell v Potter [1978] 1 WLR 255 .… 13.12, 13.23 Crest Realty Ltd, Re [1977] 2 NSWLR 450 .… 37.13 Cretanor Maritime Co Ltd v Irish Marine Management Ltd [1978] 3 All ER 164 .… 8.21 Cripps, Re [1946] 1 Ch 265 .… 12.23, 18.9 Cripps v Jee (1793) 4 Bro CC 472; 29 ER 994 .… 1.25 Cripps v Wood (1882) 51 LJ Ch 584 .… 21.21, 22.27 Cripps (Pharmaceuticals) Ltd v Wickenden [1973] 2 All ER 606; [1973] 1 WLR 944 .… 17.9, 18.7, 19.15 Cripps Warburg Ltd v Cologne Investment Co Ltd [1980] IR 321 .… 1.43 Crisp, Ex parte (1744) 1 Atk 133; 26 ER 87 .… 35.11 Crocombe v Pine Forests of Australia Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 151 .… 11.5, 12.5 Crocombe v Pine Forests of Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2005] NSWSC 245 . … 11.5 Croft v Cavanagh .… 19.23 Croft v Graham (1863) 2 De GJ & Sm 155; 46 ER 334 .… 13.11, 13.14 Croft v Kennaugh [1945] VLR 40 .… 4.25, 4.35, 10.8, 19.5, 19.6, 19.7, 19.11, 19.14, 19.23 Croftbell Ltd, Re [1990] BCLC 844; [1990] BCC 781 .… 8.14 Crofton v Ormsby (1806) 2 Sch & Lef 583 .… 24.19, 24.21 Crompton v Earl of Effingham (1782) 9 Sim311n; 59 ER 377 .… 22.35 Cromwell Property Investment Co Ltd v Western & Toovey [1934] Ch 322 . … 32.36, 32.38 Croney v Nand [1999] Qd R 342 .… 19.22 Cronin v State Bank of South Australia (1995) ANZ ConvR 119 .… 19.5 Crosbie-Hill v Sayer [1908] 1 Ch 866 .… 34.3

Crossley v Elworthy (1871) LR 12 Eq 158 .… 13.6 Crosthwaite v Hopkins (1895) 1 ALR 33 .… 19.10 Crothers, Re [1930] VLR 49 .… 6.15 Crouch v Credit Foncier of England (1873) LR 8 QB 374 .… 6.3, 7.1 Crow v Campbell (1884) 10 VLR 186 .… 4.22 Crowe v Ballard (1740) 1 Ves 215; 30 ER 308 .… 13.3 Crowe’s Mortgage, Re (1871) LR 13 Eq 26 .… 22.48 Crowle v Russell (1878) 4 CPD 186 .… 16.7 Crowley v Fenry (1888) 22 LR Ir 96 .… 22.49 Crowley v Templeton (1914) 17 CLR 457 .… 4.33, 28.3 Crunden and Meux’s Contract, Re [1909] 1 Ch 690 .… 20.4 Cruse v Nowell (1856) 25 LJ Ch 709 .… 15.3 Crusoe d Blencowe v Bugby (1771) 3 Wills 234; 95 ER 1030 .… 13.53 Cryne v Barclays Bank plc [1987] BCLC 548 .… 17.9, 18.6 CTM Nominees Pty Ltd v Galba (1982) 2 BPR 9588 .… 42.8 Cuban Land and Development Co, Re (1911) Ltd [1921] 2 Ch 147 .… 32.14 Cuckmere Brick Co Ltd v Mutual Finance Ltd [1971] Ch 949; [1971] 2 All ER 633 .… 18.13, 18.13, 20.1, 20.21, 20.23, 20.27, 20.33, 30.35 Cumberland Court (Brighton) Ltd v Taylor [1964] Ch 29; [1963] 2 All ER 536 .… 32.61 Cumberland Union Banking Co v Maryport Hematite Iron and Steel Co [1892] 1 Ch 92 .… 1.20, 21.15, 22.23 Cuming, Re (1869) LR 5 Ch App 72 .… 22.48 Cummins v Fletcher (1880) 14 Ch D 699 .… 31.1, 31.4 Cunard SS Co Ltd, Re [1908] WN (Eng) 160 .… 11.43 Cunard SS Co Ltd v Hopwood [1908] 2 Ch 564 .… 11.42 Cunningham v National Australia Bank Ltd (1987) 15 FCR 495 .… 20.38

Cunningham-Reid v Public Trustee [1944] KB 602 .… 30.2 Curling v Law Society [1985] 1 WLR 470; [1985] 1 All ER 705 .… 7.1 Currey v Federal Building Society (1929) 42 CLR 421 .… 4.5 Curtis v Rush (1814) 2 Ves & B 416; 35 ER 378 .… 35.5 Custom Credit Corp Ltd v Heard and Raphael (1982) 31 SASR 101 .… 19.16 Custom Credit Corp Ltd v Heard and Raphael (1983) 33 SASR 45 .… 6.18, 11.28 Custom Credit Corp Ltd v Ravi Nominees Pty Ltd (1992) 8 WAR 42 .… 4.28, 11.15 Cuthbertson v Irving (1859) 4 H & N 742; 157 ER 1034 .… 12.20, 12.21 Cuthbertson v Irving (1860) 6 H & N 56; 158 ER 56 .… 12.20, 12.21 Cuzeno RVM Pty Ltd v Overton Investments Pty Ltd (2002) 10 BPR 19,425 .… 3.8 D D & J Fowler (Australia) Ltd v Bank of New South Wales [1982] 2 NSWLR 879 .… 17.8, 30.2 D Jones & Co’s Mortgage, Re (1888) 59 LT 859 .… 22.48 Daintry, Re; Ex parte Arkwright (1864) 3 Mont D & De G 129 .… 3.38 Dale v Smithwick (1690) 2 Vern 151; 23 ER 704 .… 3.49 Dallas, Re [1904] 2 Ch 385 .… 6.14, 26.1, 26.3, 26.13, 26.15, 26.18, 26.23 Dalle Nogare, Re (1964) 6 FLR 277 .… 7.10 Dallimore v Oriental Bank Corp (1875) 1 VLR (Eq) 13 .… 39.32 Dallow v Garrold; Ex parte Adams (1884) 14 QBD 543 .… 2.48 Dalston Development Pty Ltd v Dean [1967] WAR 176 .… 2.8, 7.9 Dalton v Christofis [1978] WAR 42 .… 1.25 Dalton v Hayter (1844) 7 Beav 313; 49 ER 1085 .… 21.14, 33.7, 33.8

Dampier Salt (Operations) Pty Ltd v Collector of Customs (1995) 133 ALR 502 .… 5.4 Dandoroff v Rogozinoff [1988] 2 NZLR 588 .… 13.37 Daniel v Bank of Hayward 425 NW 2d 416 (1988) .… 5.104 Daniel v Russell (1807) 14 Ves 393; 33 ER 572 .… 26.8 Daniel v Skipwith (1787) 2 Bro CC 155; 29 ER 89 .… 21.11, 22.10 Daniell v Paradiso (1991) ANZ ConvR 496 .… 28.16 Daniell v Sinclair (1881) 6 App Cas 181 .… 39.3, 39.50 Daniels v Pynbland (No 2) (1985) 4 BPR 9716 .… 1.23 Daniher v Fitzgerald (1919) 19 SR (NSW) 260 .… 4.29, 12.18 Danziger v The Hydro-Electric Commission [1961] Tas SR 20 .… 5.4 Daponte v Schubert and Roy Nominees Ltd [1939] Ch 958 .… 7.8, 7.9 Darby’s Estate, Re; Rendall v Darby [1907] 2 Ch 465 .… 30.4, 30.6 Darbyshire v Darbyshire (1905) 2 CLR 787 .… 27.10 Darcy v Callan (1836) 1 Jo Ex Ir 614 .… 33.14 Darlow v Cooper (1865) 34 Beav 281; 55 ER 643 .… 16.7 Darzinskas, Re (1981) 132 DLR (3d) 77 .… 5.42 Dashwood v Bithazey (1729) Mos 196; 25 ER 347 .… 21.11 Dashwood v Blythway 191729) 1 Eq rep 217, pl 3; 21 ER 1072 .… 22.38 Data Homes Pty Ltd, Re [1971] 1 NSWLR 338; [1972] 2 NSWLR 22 .… 1.57 D’Auvergne v Cooper [1899] WN (Eng) 256 .… 7.9 Davenport v James (1847) 7 Hare 249; 68 ER 102 .… 22.4, 40.4 Davenport v King (1883) 49 LR 92 .… 11.6 Davey v Durrant; Smith v Durrant (1857) 1 De G & J 535; 44 ER 830 .… 20.6, 20.23, 20.32 David Lloyd & Co, Re; Lloyd v David Lloyd & Co (1877) 6 Ch D 339 .…

23.3 David Morris Fine Cars Ltd v North Sky Trading Inc (Trustee of) (1996) 38 Alta LR (3d) 428; 11 PPSAC (2d) 142 .… 5.25 David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1990) 23 FCR 1 .… 3.18 David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 175 CLR 353; 109 ALR 57 .… 3.18, 24.48, 41.3 Davidson v O’Halloran [1913] VLR 367 .… 27.10, 27.14 Davidson v Sydney County Council Employees’ Credit Union Ltd [1979] 1 NSWLR 41 .… 3.14, 17.2 Davies, In the Will of (1924) 20 Tas LR 36 .… 29.2 Davies, Re (1843) 12 LJ Ch 456 .… 2.43 Davies v Chamberlain (1909) 26 TLR 138 .… 32.11, 32.14 Davies v Davies (1841) 4 Beav 54; 49 ER 258 .… 24.15 Davies v Law Mutual Building Society (1971) 219 EG 309 .… 19.16, 19.21, 19.39 Davies v Littlejohn (1923) 34 CLR 174 .… 2.9, 2.11, 18.15, 29.2 Davies v Lowndes (1847) 3 CB 808; 136 ER 324 .… 2.49 Davies v Parry (1859) 1 Giff 174; 65 ER 874 .… 42.3 Davies v Premier Investment Co Ltd [1945] 2 All ER 681 .… 41.3 Davies v R Bolton & Co [1894] 3 Ch 678 .… 11.7 Davies v Ryan [1951] VLR 283 .… 4.16 Davies v Thomas [1900] 2 Ch 462 .… 2.9, 2.10, 2.12 Davies v Vernon (1844) 6 QB 443; 115 ER 169 .… 2.40 Davies v Williams (1843) 7 Jur 663 .… 16.7 Davies v Wright (1886) 32 Ch D 220 .… 21.14, 21.23 Davis v Barrett (1851) 14 Beav 542; 51 ER 394 .… 14.12, 36.7, 39.19 Davis v Davis (1876) 24 WR 962 .… 29.2

Davis v Davis [1894] 1 Ch 393 .… 6.22 Davis v Duke of Marlborough (1819) 2 Swan 108; 36 ER 555 .… 13.11, 13.13, 18.23 Davis v Gardiner (1723) 2 P Wms 187; 24 ER 693 .… 30.3 Davis v Symons [1934] Ch 442 .… 32.8, 32.9 Davis v Thomas (1831) Russ & M 506; 39 ER 195 .… 1.27, 1.29 Davis v Williams [2003] NSWCA 371 .… 4.15, 4.19 Davjoyda Estates v National Insurance Co [1965] NSWR 1529 .… 3.20 Dawson (Dec’d), Re; Union Fidelity Trustee Co Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd [1966] 2 NSWR 211 .… 39.42 Dawson v Dawson (1737) West t Hardwicke 171 .… 39.3 Day v Day (1857) 1 De G & J 144; 44 ER 678 .… 26.27 Day v Day (1862) 31 Beav 270; 54 ER 1142 .… 39.59 Dayton v Hayter (1844) 7 Beav 313; 49 ER 1085 .… 33.7 DCD Industries, Re (1995) Ltd (2005) 7 PPSAC (3d) 251; 253 DLR (4th) 171 .… 5.79 DCT v Government Insurance Office NSW (1992) 36 FCR 314; (1992) 23 ATR 378 .… 41.1 DCT v PM Developments Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1886 .… 41.7 De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd v British South Africa Co [1912] AC 52 . … 32.12, 32.14 De Borman v Makkofaides [1971] EGD 909 .… 32.6, 32.8 De Garis v Dalgety & Co Ltd (1915) SALR 102 .… 17.1, 39.42, 39.57 De Groot, Re [2001] 2 Qd R 359 .… 2.48, 26.1 De Lange v Eastman Pharmaceutical Co Ltd[1972] AR 551 .… 13.35 De Leeuw, Re; Jakens v Central Agency of Discount Corp [1922] 2 Ch 540 . … 13.43, 33.3 De Lisle v Union Bank of Scotland [1914] 1 Ch 22 .… 14.1, 15.2, 22.24,

39.20 De Nicholls v Saunders (1870) LR 5 CP 589 .… 12.7, 12.13, 19.30 De Rochefort v Dawes (1871) LR 12 Eq 540 .… 30.2 De Winton v Brecon Corp (1859) 26 Beav 533; 53 ER 1004 1 .… 11.8 De Witt v Addison (1899) 80 LT 207 .… 13.22 Deangrove Pty Ltd v Buckby (2006) 56 ACSR 630 .… 20.21 Dean-Willcocks v Nothingtoohard Pty Ltd (In liq) (2005) 53 ACSR 587 .… 18.15 Dearle v Hall (1828) 3 Russ 1; 38 ER 475; [1824–34] All ER Rep 28 .… 1.37, 6.7, 6.14, 6.17, 6.24, 26.1, 26.2, 26.8, 26.15, 26.16, 32.68 Debney v Semerdziev [1982] 2 NSWLR 391 .… 40.21 Debtor, Re a [1913] 3 KB 11 .… 35.8, 35.11 Debtor, Re a; Ex parte Debtor v Dodwell (Trustee) [1949] Ch 236; [1949] 1 All ER 510 .… 22.9 Debtor, Re a (No 24 of 1971); Ex parte Marley v Trustee of Property of Debtor [1976] 2 All ER 1010; [1976] 1 WLR 952 .… 22.8, 33.2 Dee Estates Ltd, Re [1911] 2 Ch 85 .… 2.39 Deeley v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1912] AC 756; [1911–13] All ER Rep 1149 .… 24.25, 25.7, 25.11, 25.15, 30.9, 32.54 Deeley v Lloyds Bank (No 2) (1909) 53 Sol Jo 419 .… 40.13 Dehy Fodders (Australia) Pty Ltd, Re (1973) 4 SASR 538 .… 8.18, 25.12, 25.13 Delabere v Norwood (1786) 3 Swan 144n .… 22.5 Della-Franca’s Caveat, Re [1993] 1 Qd R 382 .… 4.28 Demerara Bauxite Co Ltd v Hubbard [1923] AC 673 .… 13.24, 42.2 Demetrios v Gikas Dry Cleaning Industries Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 561 . … 4.19 Dempsey v Traders’ Finance Co Ltd [1933] NZLR 1258 .… 8.18

Den Norske Bank AG v Owners of Ships Eurosea and Eurostar and Euro Marine Carriers BV [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 106 .… 9.15 Den Norske Bank ASA v Acemex Management Co Ltd (The Tropical Reefer) [2005] 1 BCLC 274; [2004] 1 Ll Rep 1; [2004] 1 All ER (Comm) 904 .… 9.26 Denis v Duke of Marlborough (1819) 2 Swan 108; 36 ER 555 .… 33.8 Dennerley v Prestwich UDC [1930] 1 KB 334 .… 16.29 Denney, Gasquet and Metcalfe v Conklin [1913] 3 KB 177 .… 67 Dennis v Martin [1932] VLR 361 .… 4.30, 14.16, 17.10 Deposit Protection Board v Dalia [1993] Ch 243 .… 6.10, 6.14 Depsun Pty Ltd v Tahore Holdings Pty Ltd (1990) 5 BPR 11,314 .… 4.28 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Chant (1991) 103 ALR 387 .… 4.7 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Horsburgh [1983] 2 VR 591 .… 24.32 Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Horsburgh [1984] VR 773 .… 8.20 der Bach and Mueller, Re (1987) 46 DLR (4th) 320 .… 36.1, 36.7 Destone Fabrics Ltd, Re [1941] Ch 319; [1941] 1 All ER 545 .… 8.24 Detillin v Gale (1802) 7 Ves 583; 32 ER 234 .… 40.1, 40.3 Detmold, Re; Detmold v Detmold (1889) 40 Ch D 585 .… 13.51 Devaynes v Noble; Clayton’s Case (1816) 1 Mer 529; 35 ER 767 .… 5.33, 25.15, 32.54 Devaynes v Robinson (1857) 24 Beav 86; 53 ER 289 .… 11.9, 11.12 Development Consultants Ltd v Lion Breweries Ltd [1981] 2 NZLR 258 .… 16.10, 32.37 Deverges v Sandeman, Clark & Co [1902] 1 Ch 579 .… 20.3, 20.37 Deves v Wood [1911] 1 KB 806 .… 18.5, 20.6 Devitt v Kearney (1883) 13 LR Ir 45 .… 11.12 Devlin v Surfers Paradise Investments Pty Ltd [1998] 1 Qd R 404 .… 32.3,

32.12, 32.55, 33.9 Devon Nominees Ltd v Hampstead Holdings Ltd [1981] 1 NZLR 477 .… 32.41 DFC New Zealand Ltd v Poulopoulos (1992) ANZ ConvR 22 .… 17.11 Dibb v Walker [1893] 2 Ch 429 .… 16.33 Dickason v Marine National Bank of Naples, N.A. (2005) 898 So 2d 1170 . … 5.36 Dickenson v Harrison (1817) 4 Price 282; 146 ER 465 .… 3.13, 17.2 Dickinson v Kitchen (1858) 8 E & B 789; 120 ER 293 .… 9.15 Dickinson v Shee (1801) 4 Esp 67; 170 ER 644 .… 32.46 Dieas v Stockley (1836) 7 C & P 587; 173 ER 258 .… 2.32 Digby v Craggs (1762) Amb 612; 27 ER 396 .… 39.52 Dillwyn v Llewellyn (1862) 4 De GF & J 517; 45 ER 1285 .… 2.18 Dimmick v Pearce Investments Pty Ltd (1980) 43 FLR 235 .… 20.23, 20.33, 20.34 Dingle v Coppen [1899] 1 Ch 726 .… 16.30 Dinmore Meatworks Pty Ltd v Kerr (1962) 108 CLR 628 .… 2.22 Diplock v Hammond (1854) 5 De GM & G320; 43 ER 893 .… 6.11 District Bank Ltd v Luigi Grill Ltd [1943] Ch 78; [1943] 1 All ER 136 .… 24.15 District Bank Ltd v Webb [1958] 1 All ER 126; [1958] 1 WLR 148 .… 12.13 Dittmer Goldmines Ltd, Re [1954] QSR 255 .… 11.41 Dittmer Goldmines Ltd, Re (No 2) [1954] QSR 266 .… 11.41 Dix, Re; Ex parte Whitbread (1841) 2 Mont D & De G 415 .… 36.16 Dixon, Re (1922) 39 WN (NSW) 89 .… 4.28 Dixon v Ly Ty Tran Cao (Federal Court of Australia, Beazley J, 10 April 1995, unreported) .… 2.33, 2.40

Dixon v Muckleston (1872) LR 8 Ch App 155 .… 3.40, 24.27, 24.39, 24.45, 28.11, 28.14 Dixon v Steel [1901] 2 Ch 602 .… 32.30, 34.8 Dixon v Winch [1900] 1 Ch 736 .… 14.11, 39.13 Dixon Fuels Ltd v SWS Fuels Ltd (2011) 17 PPSAC (3d) 175; 84 CBR (5th) 206 .… 5.79, 5.87 Dixon v Wrench (1869) LR 4 Ex 154 .… 7.8 DM & BP Wiskich Pty Ltd v Drivehard Pty Ltd(SC (NSW), 13 December 1995, unreported) .… 7.14, 8.10, 8.16, 8.21 Dobbs v National Bank of Australasia Ltd (1935) 53 CLR 643 .… 17.7 Doble v Manley (1885) 28 Ch D 664 .… 21.4, 22.28 Dobson v Land (1850) 4 De G & Sm 575; 64 ER 963 .… 32.80, 39.19, 39.37, 40.15 Dobson v Lee (1842) 1 Y & CCC 714; 62 ER 1084 .… 39.27 Docksey v Else (1891) 64 LT 256 .… 22.46 Dodd v Lydall (1842) 1 Hare 333; 66 ER 1060 .… 22.15 Dodds v Hills (1865) 2 Hem & M 424; 71 ER 528 .… 24.20 Dodlot v Hartogen Energy Ltd (1991) 6 ACSR 397 .… 11.41 Doe d Barney v Adams (1832) 2 Cr & J 232; 149 ER 101 .… 12.29 Doe d Bastow v Cox (1847) 11 QB 122; 116 ER 421 .… 12.10 Doe d Bristowe v Pegge (1785) 1 Term Rep 758n; 99 ER 1362 .… 19.17 Doe d Christmas v Oliver (1829) 10 B & C 181; 109 ER 418 .… 19.18 Doe d Dixie v Davies (1851) 7 Exch 89; 155 ER 868 .… 12.10 Doe d Garrod v Olley (1840) 12 Ad & El 481; 113 ER 894 .… 19.29 Doe d Goody v Carter (1847) 9 QB 863; 115 ER 1505 .… 12.10 Doe d Griffith v Mayo (1828) 7 LJOSKB 84 .… 12.4, 12.5 Doe d Higginbotham v Barton (1840) 11 Ad & El 307; 113 ER 432 .… 12.9

Doe d Jones v Williams (1836) 5 Ad & El 291; 111 ER 1175 .… 12.9 Doe d Palmer v Eyre (1851) 17 QB 366 .… 16.31 Doe d Parsley v Day (1842) 2 QB 147; 114 ER 58 .… 12.10, 19.4, 19.7, 19.25, 29.29 Doe d Pitt v Hogg (1824) 4 Dow & Ry KB 226 .… 13.53 Doe d Roby v Maisey (1828) 8 B & C 767; 108 ER 1228 .… 12.4, 12.5, 12.9, 19.16 Doe d Rogers v Cadwallader (1831) 2 B & Ad 473; 109 ER 1218 .… 12.19 Doe d Roylance v Lightfoot (1841) 8 M & W 553; 151 ER 1158 .… 12.10, 19.12 Doe d Snell v Tom (1843) 4 QB 615; 114 ER 1030 .… 19.29 Doe d Whitaker v Hales (1831) 7 Bing 322; 131 ER 124 .… 12.19 Doering v Doering (1889) 42 Ch D 203 .… 6.8, 24.31 Dollar Land Corp Ltd and Solomon, Re (1963) 39 DLR (2d) 221 .… 19.40 Dolly Madison Industries, Inc (1972) 351 F Supp 1038 .… 5.44 Dolphin v Aylward (1870) LR 4 HL 486 .… 13.9, 24.49, 30.10, 30.12, 30.15 Domaschenz v Standfield Properties Pty Ltd (1977) 17 SASR 56 .… 39.50 Domville v Berrington (1837) 2 Y & C Ex 723;160 ER 585 .… 22.44 Donald v Suckling (1866) LR 1 QB 585 .… 1.11, 21.3 Donisthorpe v Porter (1762) 2 Eden 162; 28 ER 858 .… 36.4 Doody, Re; Fisher v Doody [1893] 1 Ch 129 .… 42.10 Dorman Long & Co Ltd Re South Durham Steel and Iron Co Ltd, Re [1934] Ch 635 .… 8.5 Dossi, Re (1905) 5 SR (NSW) 204 .… 7.10 Dotter v Evans [1969] VR 41 .… 32.79 Double Bay Newspapers Pty Ltd v AW Holdings Pty Ltd (1996) 42 NSWLR 409 .… 4.27, 24.28, 28.9, 28.15, 28.16 Douglas, Re; Ex parte Snowball (1872) 7 Ch App 534 .… 11.26, 24.9

Douglas v Culverwell (1862) 4 De GF & J 20; 45 ER 1089 .… 1.28, 1.29, 13.13, 39.37 Douglas Norman & Co, Re [1898] 1 Ch 199 .… 2.37 Dovey Enterprises Ltd v Guardian Assurance Publications Ltd [1993] 1 NZLR 540 .… 8.21 Dowager Duchess of Sutherland v Duke of Sutherland [1893] 3 Ch 169 .… 12.24 Dowle v Saunders (1864) 2 Hem & M 242; 71 ER 456 .… 24.43 Dowling v Ditanda Ltd (1975) 236 EG 485 .… 35.8, 42.15 Downes v Grazebrook (1817) 3 Mer 200; 36 ER 77 .… 20.40 Downs Distributing Co Pty Ltd v Associated Blue Star Stores Pty Ltd (1948) 76 CLR 463 .… 5.104 Downsview Nominees Ltd v First City Corp Ltd [1993] AC 295; [1993] 3 All ER 626; [1993] 2 WLR 86 .… 1.7, 18.5, 18.6, 20.21, 42.15 Dowsett v Reid (1912) 15 CLR 695 .… 42.2 Dowson and Jenkins’s Contract, Re [1904] 2 Ch 219 .… 20.9 Doyle v Doyle [1992] 3 NZLR 170 .… 1.7, 11.2, 17.3 Doyles Construction Lawyers v Harsands Pty Ltd (SC (NSW), McLelland CJ in Eq, 24 December 1996, unreported) .… 2.50 DPP v Lawler (1994) 68 ALJR 289 .… 37.14 Drake v Templeton (1913) 16 CLR 153 .… 4.5 Drake, Ex parte (1841) 1 Mont D & De G 539 .… 13.53 Drax, Re; Savile v Drax [1903] 1 Ch 781 .… 3.17, 3.46, 39.42, 39.57 Drew v Lockett (1863) 32 Beav 499; 55 ER 196 .… 25.5, 42.14 Drew v Willis [1891] 1 QB 450 .… 7.7 Driller v Smail (1968) 12 FLR 326 .… 23.5 Driver v Broad [1893] 1 QB 744 .… 1.33, 8.10, 8.11 Droop v Colonial Bank (1881) 7 VLR (E) 71 .… 13.9

Drought v Jones (1840) 4 Dru & War 174 .… 35.2 Drought v Redford (1827) 1 Mol 572 .… 21.5 Drulroad Pty Ltd v Gibson (1992) 5 BPR 11,878 .… 4.3, 24.14, 24.29, 28.15 Drum Reconditioners, Re (NSW) Pty Ltd (1992) 7 ACSR 82 .… 11.43 Dryden v Frost (1838) 3 My & Cr 670; 40 ER 1084 .… 2.13, 40.23, 42.5 Drysdale v Mace (1854) 5 De GM & G 103; 43 ER 809 .… 24.19 Drysdale v Piggot (1856) 8 De GM & G 546; 44 ER 500 .… 6.15, 32.73 DTC (NC) Ltd v Gary Sargeant & Co [1996] 1 WLR 797; [1996] 2 All ER 369 .… 2.28 Du Vigier v Lee (1843) 2 Hare 326; 67 ER 134 .… 22.16 Duberly v Day (1851) 14 Beav 9; 51 ER 190 .… 22.19 Duck v Tower Galvanising Co [1901] 2 KB 314 .… 8.19 Dudley and District Benefit Building Society v Emerson [1949] Ch 707; [1949] 2 All ER 252 .… 12.11, 12.17 Dudley Engineering Pty Ltd, Re [1968] 1 NSWR 483; 87 WN (Pt 1) NSW) 326 .… 11.43 Duff v Devlin [1924] 1 IR 56 .… 22.42 Duffy v Super Centre Development Corp Ltd [1967] 1 NSWR 382 .… 18.4 Dugdale v Robertson (1857) 3 K & J 695; 69 ER 1289 .… 16.6, 42.20 Duggan v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (SC (NSW), Cohen J, 28 April 1995, unreported) .… 19.38 Duke Finance Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1990) 22 NSWLR 236 .… 2.35 Duke of Marlborough, Re; Davis v Whitehead [1894] 2 Ch 133 .… 1.28, 32.31 Duke v Robson [1973] 1 All ER 481 .… 20.36, 20.37, 32.55 Dunbar v Dunbar [1909] 2 Ch 639 .… 30.2 Duncan v Dixon (1890) 44 Ch D 211 .… 13.2

Duncan, Fox & Co v North and South Wales Bank (1879) 11 Ch D 88 .… 30.2 Duncan, Fox & Co v North and South Wales Bank (1880) 6 App Cas 1 .… 42.14 Duncombe v Greenacre (1860) 28 Beav 472; 54 ER 447 .… 1.51, 16.10 Dundas v Vavasour (1895) 39 Sol Jo 656 .… 12.28 Dunderland Iron Ore Co Ltd, Re [1909] 1 Ch 446 .… 8.7 Dunecar Pty Ltd v Colbron (2001) 40 ACSR 342 .… 4.26 Dungate v Dungate [1965] 3 All ER 393; [1965] 1 WLR 1477 .… 16.34 Dunlop, Re; Dunlop v Dunlop (1882) 21 Ch D 583 .… 30.2 Dunn v Dunn (1855) 1 Jur (NS) 122 .… 2.43 Dunn v Oakminster Ltd (1994) 12 ACLC 264 .… 11.40 Dunphy v Sleepyhead Manufacturing Co Ltd [2007] 3 NZLR 602 .… 5.24, 5.112 Dunstan v Patterson (1847) 2 Ph 341; 41 ER 974 .… 22.15, 22.16 Dunster v Lord Glengall (1853) 3 Ir Ch R47 .… 24.50 Durham Bros v Robertson [1898] 1 QB 765 .… 1.13, 6.5, 6.11 Dutton, Massey & Co, Re; Ex parte Manchester and Liverpool District Banking Co [1924] 2 Ch 199 .… 23.7 Dwyer v Derek [2004] 1 Qd R 371 .… 14.5 Dymond v Croft (1876) 3 Ch D 512 .… 22.12, 22.15 Dyson v Morris (1842) 1 Hare 413; 66 ER 1092 .… 22.24 E E Pfeiffer Weinkellerei-Weineinkauf GmbH v Arbuthnot Factors Ltd [1988] 1 WLR 150 .… 6.23 E S Schwab & Co Ltd v McCarthy (1975) 31 P & CR 196 .… 3.29, 3.33, 37.8

Eade v Vogiazopoulos [1993] ANZ ConvR 129; (1993) V ConvR 54-458 .… 4.11, 4.18, 4.20, 13.35, 13.44, 24.15, 28.16 Eades v Harris (1842) 1 Y & CCC 230; 62 ER 867 .… 33.5 Eagle Star Nominees Ltd v Merrill [1982] VR 557 .… 19.24 Eagles v Eagles [1960] VR 400 .… 11.6 Eardley v Knight (1889) 41 Ch D 537 .… 39.45 Earl Fitzwilliam v Price (1858) 4 Jur NS 889 .… 40.25 Earl Kingston’s Estate, Re [1869] 3 IR 485 .… 16.34 Earl of Aylesford v Morris (1873) LR 8 Ch 484 .… 13.14, 13.16 Earl of Buckinghamshire v Hobart (1818) 3 Swan 186; 36 ER 824 .… 36.4 Earl of Chesterfield v Janssen (1751) 2 Ves Sen 125; 28 ER 82 .… 13.11, 13.16 Earl of Cork v Russell (1871) LR 13 Eq 210 .… 21.13, 22.5, 32.26, 40.16 Earl of Kinnoul v Money (1767) 3 Swan 202; 36 ER 830 .… 21.11, 30.7 Earl of Lucan, Re; Hardinge v Cobden (1890) 45 Ch D 470 .… 1.37, 2.6, 2.7, 6.11 Earl of Macclesfield v Fitton (1683) 1 Vern 168; 23 ER 392 .… 14.2 Earl of Sheffield v London Joint Stock Bank (1888) 13 App Cas 333 .… 6.17 Earl of Suffolk and Berkshire v Cox (1867) 36 LJ Ch 591 .… 26.15 Early, Re [1897] 1 IR 6 .… 40.21 Eason v Johnsonville Co-operative Building Society [1918] GLR 129 .… 32.32 East Central Development Corp v Freightliner Truck Sales (Regina) Ltd (1997) 12 PPSAC (2d) 328 .… 5.25 Eastdoro Pty Ltd (No 2), Re [1990] 1 Qd R 424 .… 4.13 Eastern Canada Savings and Loans Co v Campbell (No 2) (1971) 19 DLR (3d) 231 .… 31.9 Eastern Retreads Wholesale Pty Ltd, Re (1979) 4 ACLR 136 .… 8.24

Eaton v Hazel (1852) 1 WR 87 .… 33.7 Economic Life Assurance Society v Usborne [1902] AC 147 .… 36.14 Eddis v Chichester Constable [1969] 2 Ch 345; [1969] 2 All ER 912 .… 16.36 Ede v Knowles (1843) 2 Y & CCC 172; 63 ER 76 .… 3.40 Edelstein v Schuler & Co [1902] 2 KB 144 .… 8.3 Edge v Worthingon (1786) 1 Cox Eq Cas 211; 29 ER 1133 .… 3.40 Edgewater Growth Capital Partners LP v HIG Capital Inc 68 A 3d 197 (2013) .… 5.121 Edginton v Clark [1964] 1 QB 367; [1963] 3 All ER 468 .… 16.34 Edibles Corporation v West Ontario Street Limited (1995) 273 Ill App 3d 550 .… 5.41 Edlan No 54 Pty Ltd v McIntyre (2003) 47 ACSR 691 .… 2.18 Edmiston v Scottish Temperance and General Assurance Co Ltd (1929) 115 LT Jo 70 .… 42.9 Edmonds, Ex parte (1862) 4 De GF & J 488; 45 ER 1273 .… 2.18 Edmonds v Blaina Furnaces Co (1887) 36 Ch D 215 .… 8.1 Edmondson v Copland [1911] 2 Ch 301 .… 32.36, 32.38, 32.41 Edmunds v Waugh (1866) LR 1 Eq 418 .… 16.30 Edward Oliver, The (1867) LR 1 A & E 379 .… 30.10 Edward Wong Finance Ltd v Johnson Stokes & Master [1984] AC 296 .… 32.74 Edwards v Burt (1852) 2 De GM & G 55; 42 ER 791 .… 13.13 Edwards v Cunliffe (1816) 1 Madd 287; 56 ER 106 .… 22.30, 22.31, 22.32, 22.34 Edwards v Edwards (1876) 2 Ch D 291 .… 18.20 Edwards v Marshall-Lee (1975) 119 Sol Jo 506 .… 32.60, 32.62 Edwards v Martin (1856) 25 LJ Ch 284 .… 16.5

Edwards v Martin (1858) 28 LJ Ch 49 .… 22.28 Edwards v Martin (1865) LR 1 Eq 121 .… 24.8 Edwards v McDowell (1933) 50 WN (NSW) 244 .… 4.23, 4.25, 20.40 Edwards v Ottawa Valley Grain Products Ltd (1970) 11 DLR (3d) 137 .… 17.5 Edwards v Standard Rolling Stock Syndicate [1893] 1 Ch 574 .… 8.18 Edwards and Rudkin to Green, Re (1888) 58 LT 789 .… 20.19 Edward’s Will Trusts, Re [1937] Ch 553; [1937] 3 All ER 58 .… 16.33 Edwick v Hawkes (1881) 18 Ch D 199 .… 19.19 Edwin Hill and Partners (a firm) v First National Finance Corp plc [1988] 3 All ER 801 .… 16.3 Egbert v National Crown Bank [1918] AC 903 .… 35.7 Egerton v Jones [1939] 2 KB 702 .… 37.11 Eichholz, Re; Eichholz’s Trustee v Eichholz [1959] 1 Ch 708 .… 13.588 Eland v Baker (1861) 29 Beav 137; 54 ER 579 .… 11.8 Eland v Eland (1839) 1 Beav 235; 48 ER 930 .… 24.19 Elder v Maclean (1857) 5 WR 447 .… 26.27 Elderly Citizens Homes of SA Inc v Balnaves (1998) 72 SASR 210 .… 2.10, 4.27, 28.15, 28.16 Elders Pastoral Ltd v Bank of New Zealand (No 2) [1990] 1 WLR 1478 .… 1.34, 6.11, 6.23, 8.18 Elders Rural Finance Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp (1988) 4 BPR 9383 .… 14.1, 14.2, 14.12, 19.10, 39.19, 39.20 Elders Rural Finance Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp (1990) 5 BPR 11,790 .… 19.21 Elders Trustee & Executor Co Ltd v E G Reeves Pty Ltd (1988) 20 FCR 164; 84 ALR 734 .… 4.8, 4.9, 4.41, 33.29, 40.1, 40.2, 40.23 Elders Trustee and Executor Co Ltd v Bagot’s Executor and Trustee Co Ltd

[1964] SASR 306 .… 17.11 Elders Trustee and Executor Co Ltd v Eagle Star Nominees Ltd (1986) 4 BPR 9205 .… 36.14, 40.1, 40.2, 40.3 Electrical Enterprises Retail Pty Ltd v Rodgers (1988) 15 NSWLR 573 .… 8.10 Eley v Read (1897) 76 LT 39 .… 20.48 Elias v Snowdon Slate Quarries Co (1879) 4 App Cas 454 .… 42.21 Elite Promotions & Management Pty Ltd v SA Investments Pty Ltd (2011) 80 NSWLR 686 .… 12.8 Elkofairi v Permanent Trustee Company Limited [2002] NSWCA 413 .… 13.36 Ellenor v Ugle [1895] WN 161 .… 22.37 Ellingsen (2000) 190 DLR (4th) 47; 1 PPSAC (3d) 307 .… 5.15 Elliot, Re (1886) 7 LR (NSW) (L) 286 .… 4.28 Elliot v Edwards (1802) 3 Bos & P 181; 127 ER 100 .… 2.13 Ellis & Co’s Trustee v Dixon-Johnson [1924] 1 Ch 342 .… 22.38 Ellis & Co’s Trustee v Dixon-Johnson [1924] 2 Ch 451 .… 22.38 Ellis & Co’s Trustee v Dixon-Johnson [1925] AC 489 .… 16.11, 17.10, 20.3, 22.38, 42.13 Ellis v Deane (1827) Beat 5 .… 33.4 Ellis v Glover and Hobson Ltd [1908] 1 KB 388 .… 1.20, 3.26, 42.20 Ellison v Alliance Acceptance Ltd (1984) NSW ConvR 55-217 .… 20.30 Ellison v Vukucevic (1986) 7 NSWLR 104 .… 38.6 Ellison v Wright (1827) 3 Russ 458; 38 ER 647 .… 40.23 Elmer v Creasy (1873) 9 Ch App 69 .… 33.11, 39.5 Elnic Holdings Pty Ltd v New Wave Development (NSW) Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 1226 .… 30.10 Elric Pty Ltd v Taylor (1988) 19 ATR 1551 .… 41.1

Elsey v Lutyens (1850) 8 Hare 159; 68 ER 314 .… 27.15 Elton v Curteis (1881) 19 Ch D 49 .… 39.54 Eltran Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp (1988) 32 FCR 195 .… 20.38 Emanuel College v Evans (1625) 1 Chan Rep 18; 21 ER 494 .… 1.14 Emden v Carte (1881) 19 Ch D 311 .… 2.49 Emerald Securities Pty Ltd v Tee Zed Enterprises Pty Ltd (1981) 28 SASR 214 .… 20.4, 20.6 Emerson v Custom Credit Corporation Ltd (1991) Q ConvR ¶54-414 .… 20.45 Emerson v Custom Credit Corporation Ltd [1994] 1 Qd R 516 .… 18.13, 20.22 Emery, Re; Ex parte Harvey (1839) Mont & Ch 261 .… 36.15 EMI Records Ltd v Ian Cameron Wallace Ltd [1982] Ch 59 .… 3.21 Emmet v Tottenham (1865) 12 LT 838 .… 13.11 Emporia State Bank & Trust Co v Mounhes 519 P (2d) 618 (1974) (Kan) .… 3.8 England v Codrington (1758) 1 Eden 169; 28 ER 649 .… 1.25, 40.9 English and Scottish Mercantile Investment Co Ltd v Brunton [1892] 2 QB 700 .… 6.15, 8.16, 8.18, 8.21, 24.14, 24.20, 26.3 English Scottish & Australian Bank Ltd v Phillips (1937) 57 CLR 302 .… 1.18, 3.13, 4.1, 4.13, 4.34, 17.5, 31.11, 34.3, 36.11, 36.17 English, Scottish and Australian Bank Ltd v City National Bank Ltd [1933] St R Qd 81 .… 12.18, 19.3, 19.5 Eno v Tatham (1863) 3 De GJ & Sm 443; 46 ER 706 .… 29.3 Ensworth v Griffiths (1706) 5 Bro Parl Cas 184; 2 ER 615 .… 1.27, 1.30 Enterprise Colorvideo Productions Pty Ltd v Corporate Affairs Commission (NSW) (1984) 8 ACLR 767 .… 11.40 Epic Feast Pty Ltd v Mawson KLM Holdings Pty Ltd (1998) 71 SASR 161 . … 32.16

Epple v Wilson [1972] VR 440 .… 4.28 Epsworth Group Holdings Pty Ltd v Permanent Custodians Ltd [2010] SASC 327; 108 SASR 536 .… 12.18 Equiticorp Finance (in liq) v Bank of New Zealand (1993) 32 NSWLR 50 . … 11.34 Equiticorp Financial Services Ltd (NSW) v Equiticorp Financial Services Ltd (NZ) (1992) 29 NSWLR 260 .… 13.38 Equity and Law Home Loans Ltd v Prestidge [1992] 1 All ER 909; [1992] 1 WLR 137; (1991) 63 P & CR 403 .… 14.18, 24.1 Equity One Mortgage Fund Ltd v Thompson [2009] VSC 409 .… 20.38 Equity Trustees Executors and Agency Co Ltd v Lee [1914] VLR 57 .… 12.11 Equity Trustees Executors and Agency Co Ltd v New Zealand Loan & Mercantile Agency Co Ltd [1940] VLR 201 .… 42.18 Equus Financial Services Ltd v RMBL Investments Pty Ltd (1996) 22 ACSR 744; 7 BPR 14,966 .… 33.21, 34.3, 39.5 Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp Ltd [2003] VSC 241 .… 14.12, 39.20 Erewash Borough Council v Taylor [1979] CLY 1831 .… 32.65 Ernest v Partridge (1863) 1 New Rep 425 .… 33.9 Errington, Re; Ex parte Mason [1894] 1 QB 11 .… 17.5, 34.2 Esanda Finance Corp Ltd v Jackson (1992) 11 ACLC 138 .… 8.2 Esanda Finance Corp Ltd v Leserv (No 4) Pty Ltd [1992] ACL 295 Qld 8 .… 2.4 Esberger & Son Ltd v Capital & Counties Bank [1913] 2 Ch 366 .… 11.39 Espey v Lake (1852) 10 Hare 260; 68 ER 923 .… 13.22 Espin v Pemberton (1859) 3 De G & J 547; 44 ER 1380 .… 42.5 Espin v Pemberton (1859) 4 Drew 333; 62 ER 129 .… 24.39 Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Alstonbridge Properties Ltd [1975] 3 All ER 358;

[1975] 1 WLR 1474 .… 17.3, 17.5, 17.8, 19.12, 19.15, 19.16 Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Harper’s Garage (Stourport) Ltd [1968] AC 269; [1967] 1 All ER 699 .… 32.9, 32.12, 32.13 Estoril Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp (1993) 6 BPR 13,146 . … 3.8, 3.9, 3.12, 3.14, 16.1, 40.23 Estoril Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp (SC (NSW), Young J, 31 August 1999, unreported) .… 40.3 Euro Commercial Leasing Ltd v Cartwright & Lewis [1995] 2 BCLC 618 Euroclean Canada Inc v Forest Glade Investments Ltd (1985) 16 DLR (4th) 289 .… 5.91 Europe Mortgage Co v Halifax Estate Agencies [1996] TLR 325 .… 37.2 European Asian of Australia Ltd v Kurland (1985) 8 NSWLR 192 .… 13.25, 13.27, 13.30 European Asian of Australia Ltd v Lazich (1987) ASC 55-564 .… 13.27, 13.31 European Central Rly Co, Re; Ex parte Oriental Financial Corp (1876) 4 Ch D33 .… 36.13, 36.14, 39.43 Eusanio and IACI, Re (1982) 136 DLR (3d) 569 .… 3.15 Evandale Estates Pty Ltd v Keck [1963] VR 647 .… 2.13, 2.18, 4.27, 4.28 Evans v Bicknell (1801) 6 Ves 174 at 189; 31 ER 998 .… 24.14, 24.37 Evans v Clayhope Properties Ltd [1988] 1 All ER 444; [1988] 1 WLR 358 . … 18.25 Evans v Elliot (1838) 9 Ad & El 342; 112 ER 1242 .… 12.19 Evans v Evans (1983) Conveyancing Service (NSW) [92210] .… 32.6, 32.7 Evans v Jones (1839) 5 M & W 295; 151 ER 126 .… 17.2, 17.8 Evans v Judkins (1815) 4 Camp 156; 171 ER 50 .… 32.47 Evans v Kinsey (1855) Seton (7th ed) 1887 .… 22.17 Evans v McLean (1984) 9 ACLR 233 .… 2.10, 2.13

Evans v Rival Granite Quarries Ltd [1910] 2 KB 979 .… 8.11, 8.13 Evelyn, Re; Ex parte General Public Works and Assets Co Ltd [1894] 2 QB 302 .… 23.5 Evelyn v Evelyn (1731) 2 P Wms 659; 24 ER 904 .… 30.7 Everett Credit Union v Allied Ambulance Service Inc 424 NE (2d) 1142 (1981) (Mass) .… 3.8 Everitt v Automatic Weighing Machine Co [1892] 3 Ch 506 .… 2.18, 32.56 EVTR Ltd, Re [1987] BCLC 646 .… 11.36 EWA, Re [1901] 2 KB 642 .… 35.11 Ewart v Fryer [1901] 1 Ch 499 .… 37.11 Excel Finance Corp v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1988) 48 SASR 225 .… 32.56 Exhall Coal Co, Re (1860) 35 Beav 449; 55 ER 970 .… 24.31 Ex parte Lambton (1876) 3 Ch D 36 .… 1.23 Ex parte National Trustees Executors and Agency Co Ltd (1898) 19 ALT 222 .… 4.9 Expo International Pty Ltd v Chant [1979] 2 NSWLR 820 .… 8.24, 18.5, 18.17, 20.22 Expo International Pty Ltd v Chant (No 2) (1980) 5 ACLR 193 .… 18.26 Exton v Scott (1833) 6 Sim 31; 58 ER 507 .… 1.26, 13.7 Eyre v Burmester (1862) 10 HL Cas 114; 11 ER 968 .… 24.9, 24.12 Eyre v Everett (1826) 2 Russ 381; 38 ER .… 34.8 Eyre v Hanson (1840) 2 Beav 478; 48 ER 1266 .… 22.31, 22.32, 22.34 Eyre v Hughes (1876) 2 Ch D 148 .… 19.41, 39.3 Eyre v M’Dowell (1861) 9 HL Cas 619; 11 ER 871 .… 1.40, 7.8, 24.49 F Fablehill Ltd, Re [1991] BCLC 830 .… 11.43

Factors Sundries Ltd v Miller [1952] 2 All ER 630 .… 37.11 Fahy v MSD Spiers Ltd [1975] 1 NZLR 240 .… 32.54 Fairbanx Corp v Royal Bank (2009) 15 PPSAC (3d) 265 .… 5.42 Fairbanx Corp v Royal Bank of Canada (2010) 319 DLR (4th) 618 (Ont CA) .… 5.22 Fairclough v Marshall (1878) 4 Ex D 37; 48 LJ QB 14; 27 WR 145 .… 3.54, 12.2, 33.14 Fairclough v Swan Brewery Co Ltd [1912] AC 562 .… 32.8, 32.11 Fairfold Properties Ltd v Exmouth Docks Co Ltd (No 2) [1993] Ch 196 .… 2.48 Fairholme and Palliser v Kennedy (1892) 24 LR Ir 498 .… 18.8 Fairline Boats Ltd v Leger (1980) 1 PPSAC 218 .… 5.104 Fairview Investments Ltd v Sharma (unreported, 14 October 1999, English Court of Appeal) .… 40.2 Faithfull v Woodley (1889) 43 Ch D 287 .… 22.12 Falcke v Scottish Imperial Insurance Co Ltd (1886) 34 Ch D 234 .… 2.17, 2.18 Falk v Haugh (1935) 53 CLR 163 .… 32.51, 39.59 Falk v Haugh [1935] VLR 20 .… 4.36 Fanning v Durham (1821) 5 Johnson Ch 122;9 Am Dec 292 .… 13.2 Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 230 CLR 89 .… 5.109 Farebrother v Wodehouse (1856) 23 Beav 18; 53 ER 7 .… 25.5, 31.10 Farebrother v Wodehouse (1857) 26 LJ Ch 240 .… 31.10 Farhall v Farhall (1871) 7 Ch App 123 .… 11.15, 11.18 Farmer v Curtis (1829) 2 Sim 466; 57 ER 862 .… 33.19 Farmer v Pitt [1902] 1 Ch 954 .… 3.48 Farmer & Co v Inland Revenue Commissioners[1898] 2 QB 141 .… 12.2

Farmers’ Fertilizers Corp Ltd, Ex parte (1916) 16 SR (NSW) 645 .… 40.21 Farquharson v Seton (1828) 5 Russ 45; 38 ER 944 .… 39.8 Farran v Beresford (1842) 10 Cl & Fin 319; 8 ER 764 .… 16.29 Farrand v Yorkshire Banking Co (1888) 40 Ch D 182 .… 24.44, 24.45 Farrar v Farrars Ltd (1888) 40 Ch D 395 .… 19.34, 20.6, 20.14, 20.21, 20.40, 39.24 Farrer v Lacy, Hartland & Co (1885) 25 Ch D 636 .… 20.41 Farrer v Lacy, Hartland & Co (1885) 31 Ch D 42 .… 19.41, 20.41, 22.12, 40.25 Farrier-Waimak Ltd v Bank of New Zealand [1965] AC 376; [1964] 3 All ER 657 .… 28.5, 36.13 Farrington v Smith (1894) 20 VLR 90 .… 12.3, 12.11, 12.18, 19.7, 19.10 Farrow Mortgage Services Pty Ltd v Edgar (1993) 114 ALR 1 .… 11.45 Farrow Mortgage Services Pty Ltd v Regatta Development Services Pty Ltd (1993) 32 NSWLR 333 .… 4.37 Farrow Mortgage Services Pty Ltd v Victor Tunevitsch Pty Ltd (1998) 8 Tas R 65 .… 39.51 Farrow v Rees (1840) 4 Beav 18; 49 ER 243 .… 24.19 Farrugia v Official Receiver in Bankruptcy [1982] 43 ALR 700 .… 30.7 Faulkner v Bolton (1835) 7 Sim 319; 58 ER 860 .… 33.23, 33.24 Faulkner v Daniel (1843) 3 Hare 199; 67 ER 355 .… 22.15, 33.20 Fawcett v Lowther (1751) 2 Ves Sen 300; 28 ER 193 .… 32.2 FCT v Ashwick (Qld) No 127 Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 49 .… 41.2 FCT v Australian Guarantee Corporation .… 41.3 FCT v Everett (1980) 143 CLR 440 .… 6.18, 6.20 FCT v Hurley Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd (1989) 20 ATR 1295 .… 41.3 FCT v Janmor Nominees Pty Ltd (1987) 19 ATR 254 .… 41.3 FCT v Munro (1926) 38 CLR 153 .… 41.3

FCT v Park (2012) 205 FCR 1 .… 41.1 FCT v Riverside Road (1990) 21 ATR 499 .… 41.3 FCT v Roberts and Smith (1992) 37 FCR 246 .… 41.3 FCT v Total Holdings (Australia) Ltd (1979) 9 ATR 885 .… 41.3 Featherstone v Fenwick (1784) 1 Bro CC 270n .… 21.3 Feaver, Re; Ex parte Smith (1844) 3 Mont D & De G 680 .… 39.15 Federal Bank of Australia Ltd, Re (1895) 6 BC (NSW) 3 .… 11.35 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Everett (1980) 143 CLR 440 .… 6.5 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Henderson (1943) 68 CLR 29 .… 5.4 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Krokas Investments Pty Ltd (1995) 133 ALR 454 .… 1.28 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Whitfords Beach Pty Ltd (1982) 150 CLR 355 .… 5.25 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Williamson (1943) 67 CLR 561 .… 1.23 Federal Savings Credit Union Ltd v Hessian (1980) 98 DLR (3d) 488 .… 24.3 Fee v Cobine (1847) 11 Ir Eq R 406 .… 1.29, 39.31 Fegan, Re; Fegan v Fegan [1928] Ch 45 .… 29.3 Feilden v Slater (1869) LR 7 Eq 523 .… 19.40 Feistel v King’s College Cambridge (1847) 10 Beav 491; 50 ER 671 .… 13.49 Fell v Brown (1787) 2 Bro CC 276; 29 ER 151 .… 32.26, 33.3, 33.19 Fell v Official Trustee of Charity Lands [1898] 2 Ch 44 .… 1.7, 13.53 Fencott v Clarke (1833) 6 Sim 8; 58 ER 498 .… 2.44 Fenn v Bittleston (1851) 7 Exch 152; 155 ER 895 .… 3.55 Fennell v Gardiner (1885) 1 TLR 397 .… 20.39

Fenner-Fust v Needham (1886) 32 Ch D 582 .… 39.41 Fenton, Re; Ex parte Fenton Textile Association Ltd [1931] 1 Ch 85 .… 42.16 Fenwick v Potts (1856) 8 De GM & G 506 .… 3.40, 3.45 Fenwick v Reed (1816) 1 Mer 114; 35 ER 618 .… 1.13, 3.32 Fergusson, Re (1882) 3 LR (NSW) 43 .… 12.2 Ferrier v Bottomer (1972) 46 AJLR 148 .… 8.10 Fetherstone v Mitchell (1848) 11 Ir Eq R 35 .… 24.33 Fewings, Ex parte; Sneyd, Re (1883) 25 Ch D 338 .… 16.30 Field v Abdurahman [1984] 3 NSWLR 402 .… 13.45 Field v Hopkins (1890) 44 Ch D 524 .… 42.10 Figgins Holdings Pty Ltd v SEAA Enterprises Pty Ltd (1999) 196 CLR 245 . … 1.15, 1.18, 3.23, 3.24, 4.1, 4.7, 4.9, 4.35, 12.3, 12.4, 12.7, 12.10, 12.11, 12.13, 12.18, 12.28, 12.30, 19.4, 19.7, 19.11, 19.21, 19.25, 19.29, 19.30 Finance & Investments Pty Ltd v Van Kempen (1986) 6 NSWLR 305 .… 30.2, 39.57 Finance Corp of Australia Ltd v Bentley (1991) 5 BPR 11,833 .… 30.2, 30.3, 30.9 Finance Corp of Australia Ltd v Stephens (1985) 3 Conveyancing Service (NSW) 92268 .… 20.22 Financial and Investment Services for Asia Ltd v Baik Wha International Trading Co Ltd [1985] HKLR 103 .… 14.6 Finch v Brown (1840) 3 Beav 70; 49 ER 26 .… 39.37, 39.38 Finch v Earl of Winchelsea (1715) 1 P Wms 277; 24 ER 387 .… 24.49 Finch v Shaw; Colyer v Finch (1854) 19 Beav 500; 18 Jur 935; 52 ER 445 . … 11.24, 22.33, 24.20, 24.38, 24.39, 30.5, 30.15 Finck v Tranter [1905] 1 KB 427 .… 19.14, 39.15 Fink v Robertson (1907) 4 CLR 864 .… 4.1, 4.2, 4.10, 4.34, 21.5, 21.6,

22.54, 22.55, 36.11, 36.17 Finlay v R & I Bank of Western Australia Ltd (1993) 6 BPR 13,232 .… 28.15 Firbank’s Executors v Humphreys (1886) 18 QBD 54 .… 11.9 Fire Nymph Products Pty Ltd v Heating Centre Pty Ltd (in liq) (1992) 7 ACSR 365 .… 5.104 Fire Nymph Products Ltd v The Heating Centre Pty Ltd (1988) 14 ACLR 274 .… 8.16, 8.20 Fire Nymph Products Ltd v The Heating Centre Pty Ltd (1992) 10 ACLC 629 .… 8.15, 8.20, 8.21 Fireproof Doors Ltd, Re; Umney v Fireproof Doors Ltd [1916] 2 Ch 142 .… 8.2 Firmin v Gray & Co Pty Ltd [1985] 1 Qd R160 .… 13.45 Firona Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1991] ACL Rep 295 Vic 11 .… 8.19 First Bank v Eastern Livestock Co (1993) 837 F Supp 792 .… 5.36 First Chicago Australia Ltd v Loyebe Pty Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 703 .… 32.56 First National Bank of Chicago Ltd v Moorgate Properties Ltd (1975) Times, 21 October .… 6.8 First National Bank v Lygrisse 647 P (2d) 1268 (1982) (Kan) .… 3.8 First National Bank of Steeleville, NA v Erb Equipment Co, Inc 921 S W 2d 57 (1996) .… 5.87 First National Securities Ltd v Hegerty [1985] QB 850; [1984] 1 All ER 139 .… 4.20, 11.3, 11.4, 13.44 First National Securities Ltd v Onwuegbuzie (1976) 120 Sol Jo 458 .… 3.17 Firth v Centrelink (No 2) (2002) 55 NSWLR 494 .… 2.48 Firth & Sons Ltd v IRC [1904] 2 KB 205 .… 32.57 Fisher, In the Will of [1948] VLR 8 .… 29.3

Fisher v Bridges (1854) 3 E & B 642; 118 ER 1283 .… 13.46 Fisher v Rural Adjustment and Finance Corp of Western Australia (1995) 57 FCR 1 .… 24.3 Fisher v Smith (1878) 4 App Cas 1 .… 1.10 Fisher v Tayler (1843) 2 Hare 218; 67 ER 91 .… 11.26 Fisher v The Automobile Finance Co of Australia Ltd (1928) 41 CLR 167 . … 2.27 Fisher v Westpac Banking Corporation (1993) 43 FCR 385 .… 3.5 Fison’s Will Trusts, Re [1950] Ch 394; [1950] 1 All ER 501 .… 29.2, 29.4 Fitch Lovell Ltd v IRC [1962] 3 All ER 685 .… 6.17 Fitzgerald v Fauconberge (1730) Fitzgib 207; 94 ER 722 .… 32.31 Fitzgerald v Rainsford (1804) 1 Ball & B 37n .… 3.29 Fitzgerald’s Trustee v Mellersh [1892] 1 Ch 385; [1891–4] All ER Rep 979 . … 17.9, 32.38 Flarty v Odlum (1790) 3 Term Rep 681; 100 ER 801 .… 13.49 FLE Holdings Ltd, Re [1967] 1 WLR 1409; [1967] 3 All ER 553 .… 11.39 Fleck, Re; Colston v Roberts (1888) 37 Ch D 677 .… 29.3 Fleetwood v Jansen (1742) 2 Atk 467; 26 ER 682 .… 21.7, 22.40 Fleming v Self (1854) 3 De M & G 997; 43 ER 390 .… 32.9 Fletcher, Ex parte (1832) Mont 454 .… 40.13 Fletcher v Bird (1896) unreported .… 21.13, 32.22 Fletcher v FCT (1991) 173 CLR 1 .… 41.3 Fletcher v Green (1864) 33 Beav 426; 55 ER 433 .… 11.14 Fletcher v Ould Pty Ltd [2003] WASC 226 .… 33.7 Fletcher & Campbell v City Marine Finance Ltd [1968] 2 Ll Rep 520 .… 9.26 Flight v Camac (1856) 4 WR 664 .… 39.14

Flinn v Pountain (1889) 58 LJ Ch 389 .… 24.28, 24.45 Flint v Howard [1893] 2 Ch 54 .… 30.2, 30.9, 30.12, 30.14, 30.15 Florence Land and Public Works Co, Re; Ex parte Moor (1878) 10 Ch D 530 .… 8.12, 8.14, 8.19 Florgale Uniforms Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In liq) v Orders (2004) 11 VR 54 .… 5.126, 18.13, 19.41, 20.22 Flower & Sons v Pritchard (1908) 53 Sol Jo 178 .… 20.40 FNCB-Walton Finance Ltd v Crest Realty Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 621 . … 4.38, 28.16 Footner v Sturgis (1852) 5 De G & Sm 736; 64 ER 1322 .… 22.18 Forbes v Jackson (1882) 19 Ch D 615 .… 25.5, 42.13 Forbes v Moffatt (1811) 18 Ves 384; 34 ER 362 .… 36.4, 36.7 Forbes v Ross (1782) 2 Bro CC 430; 29 ER 240 .… 11.14 Ford, Re 574 F 3d 1279 (2009) .… 5.85 Ford v Earl of Chesterfield (1853) 16 Beav 516; 51 ER 878 .… 33.27, 40.16 Ford v Earl of Chesterfield (1854) 19 Beav 428; 52 ER 416 .… 1.30 Ford v Earl of Chesterfield (1856) 21 Beav 426; 52 ER 924 .… 40.20 Ford v Olden (1867) LR 3 Eq 461 .… 32.18 Ford v Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd [2009] NSWCA 186; 75 NSWLR 42; 14 BPR 26,895 .… 13.41 Ford v Rackham (1853) 17 Beav 485; 51 ER 1122 .… 22.5 Ford v Wastell (1847) 6 Hare 229; 67 ER 1151 .… 22.36 Ford v Wastell (1848) 2 Ph 591; 41 ER 1071 .… 22.35 Ford v White (1852) 16 Beav 120; 51 ER 723 .… 24.8 Ford Credit Canada Ltd v Percival Mercury Sales Ltd (1984) 4 PPSAC 92 . … 5.30, 5.112 Ford Motor Credit Company of Canada Limited v Centre Motors of Brampton Limited (1982) 2 PPSAC 63 .… 5.104

Fordham v Wallis (1853) 10 Hare 217; 68 ER 905 .… 16.34 Forgeard v Shanahan (1994) 35 NSWLR 206 .… 11.31 Forrest, Re [1953] VLR 266 .… 16.20, 16.21 Forrest v Shore (1884) 32 WR 356 .… 22.32 Forrest Trust, Re; Trustees, Executors and Agency Co Ltd v Anson [1953] VLR 246 .… 4.8, 4.10, 4.40, 20.46, 40.1 Forshaw, Re (1847) 16 Sim 121; 60 ER 818 .… 2.35 Forsinard Estates Ltd v Dykes [1971] 1 All ER 1018 .… 40.31 Forster v Baker [1910] 2 KB 636 .… 6.19 Forster v Finance Corp of Australia Ltd [1980] VR 63 .… 20.49 Forster v Forster [1918] 1 IR 95 .… 39.24 Forster v Hoggart (1850) 15 QB 155; 117 ER 417 .… 20.18 Forsyth, Re (1929) 29 SR (NSW) 411 .… 29.2 Forsyth v Blundell (1973) 129 CLR 477 .… 20.8, 20.20, 20.21, 20.23, 20.32, 20.37, 20.42 Forsyth v Bristowe (1853) 8 Ex 716; 155 ER 1540 .… 16.33 Fortesque’s Estate, Re [1916] 1 IR 268 .… 32.8 Fortson Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2008] SASC 49 .… 18.13 Fosbery v Burdekin [1937] VLR 165 .… 6.21 Foskett v McKeown [2000] 3 All ER 97 .… 5.33 Foster, Re (1985) 129 Sol Jo 333 .… 11.41 Foster, Re [1920] 3 KB 306 .… 42.1 Foster v Esley (1881) 19 Ch D 518 .… 2.42 Foster v Woolvett (1963) 39 DLR (2d) 532 .… 17.5 Fountain v Bank of America National Trust & Savings Assn (1992) 5 BPR 11,817 .… 3.8, 3.14

Four-Maids Ltd v Dudley Marshall (Properties) Ltd [1957] Ch 317; [1957] 2 All ER 35 .… 19.12, 19.15 Fournier v The Ship Margaret Z [1999] 3 NZLR 111 .… 9.22 Fourth City Mutual Benefit Building Society v Williams (1879) 14 Ch D 140 .… 25.4 Fowler, Re; Bishop v Fowler (1922) 128 LT 620 .… 21.24, 32.36 Fowler v Fowler (1881) 50 LJ Ch 686 .… 2.44 Fowler v Midland Electric Corp for Power Distribution [1917] 1 Ch 656 .… 8.2, 32.44 Fox, Re (1856) 5 Ir Ch R 541 .… 30.13 Fox v Everingham (1983) 50 ALR 337 .… 42.6 Fox v Jolly [1916] 1 AC 1 .… 17.9 Frado v Bank of Montreal (1984) 34 Alta LR(2d) 293 .… 5.16 Frail v Ellis (1852) 16 Beav 250; 51 ER 814 .… 36.13 France v Clark (1883) 22 Ch D 830 .… 1.11, 14.1, 20.3 France v Clark (1884) 26 Ch D 257 .… 6.17, 14.1, 15.1 France v Cowper [1871] WN 76 .… 16.15 Francis v Francis (1854) 2 De GM & G 73;42 ER 798 .… 2.46 Francis v Francis (1854) 5 De GM & G 108;43 ER 811 .… 2.18, 11.14 Francis v Francis [1952] VLR 321 .… 3.36 Francklyn v Fern (1740) Barn Ch 30; 27 ER 542 .… 21.13, 32.26, 33.14 Franicevich v Strong [1997] 1 NZLR 460 .… 2.35, 2.36, 2.41, 2.42 Frankcombe v Foster Investments Pty Ltd [1978] 2 NSWLR 41 .… 2.15 Franklin v Hosier (1821) 4 B & Ald 341; 106 ER 962 .… 2.24 Franklin v Midland Bank Ltd [1941] 2 All ER 135 .… 17.3 Fraser Trenholm & Co, Re (1868) 4 Ch App 49 .… 23.8 Fraser v Clarke (1872) 3 VR (E) 84 .… 27.10

Fraser v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1996) 69 FCR 99; 138 ALR 689 .… 13.5 Fraser v Pendlebury (1861) 10 WR 104 .… 32.40 Fraser v Power (2001) Aust Contract R 90-127 .… 32.55 Fraser v Power [2000] NSWSC 257; [2001] ACL Rep 295 NSW 4 .… 11.2 Frazer v Walker [1967] 1 AC 569 .… 4.11, 4.12, 4.16, 4.23, 13.40, 30.3, 30.4 Freeman, Re 956 F 2d 252 (1992) .… 5.85 Freeman, Re; Ex parte Williams (1865) 13 WR 564 .… 39.15 Freeman v Fairlie (1812) 3 Mer 29 at 44; 36 ER 12 .… 2.45 Freeman v Laing [1899] 2 Ch 355 .… 26.16 Freeman v Pope (1870) 5 Ch App 538 .… 13.6 Freeman v Trimble (1906) 6 SR (NSW) 133 .… 18.27 Freeman and Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd [1964] 2 QB 480 .… 11.33 Freese Leasing Inc v Union Trust and Savings Bank, Stanwood 253 NW (2d) 921 (1977) (Iowa) .… 3.8 Freme v Brade (1858) 2 De G & J 582; 44 ER 1115 .… 6.15, 32.73 Fremoult v Dedire (1718) 1 P Wms 429; 24 ER 458 .… 1.34 French v Capple [2001] NSWSC 574 .… 2.8, 18.7 French v French (1855) 6 De GM & G 95; 43 ER 1166 .… 13.6 French v Gething [1922] 1 KB 236 .… 5.43 French v Hope (1887) 56 LJ Ch 363 .… 24.28 French v Queensland Premier Mines and Beckinsdale [2004] VSC 294 .… 14.5 French-Brewster’s Settlements, Re; Walters v French-Brewster [1904] 1 Ch 713 .… 36.4, 36.6 French Caledonia Travel Service Pty Ltd (in liq), Re (2003) 204 ALR 353 .

… 5.33 Freshfield’s Trusts, Re (1879) 11 Ch D 198 .… 26.1 Frew v Burnside (1925) 42 WN (NSW) 111 .… 2.22 Frewen v Law Life Assurance Society [1896] 2 Ch 511 .… 39.61 Friedmann Equity Developments Inc v Final Note Ltd [2000] 1 SCR 842; (2000) 188 DLR (4th) 269 .… 5.29 Friend v Mayer [1982] VR 941 .… 4.39, 32.36 Frisby, Re; Allison v Frisby (1889) 43 Ch D 106 .… 16.34, 16.35 Friswell v King (1846) 15 Sim 191; 60 ER 590 .… 2.33 Frith v Cartland (1865) 71 ER 525 .… 5.33 Frith v Cooke (1885) 52 LT 798 .… 22.46 Frontmond Pty Ltd v Rodgers (1993) 6 BPR 13,112 .… 2.32, 2.37 Fry, Re; Fry v Fry [1912] 2 Ch 86 .… 30.10 Fry v Lane (1888) 40 Ch D 312 .… 13.11, 13.12, 13.30, 13.31 Fuld Decd (No 4), Re [1968] P 727 .… 2.48, 2.49, 2.51 Fuller v Glyn Mills Currie & Co [1914] 2 KB 168 .… 6.17 Fuller v Goodwin (1865) 4 SCR (NSW) 66 .… 27.10 Fullerton v Provincial Bank of Ireland [1903] AC 309 .… 3.45 Fulton v 523 Nominees Pty Ltd [1984] VR 200 .… 11.6 Furber v Cobb (1887) 18 QBD 494 .… 19.41 Furlong v Howard (1804) 2 Sch & Lef 115 .… 2.44 Furness v Caterham Rail Co (1859) 27 Beav 358; 54 ER 140 .… 21.14 Fyfe v Smith [1975] 2 NSWLR 408; (1979) 129 NLJ 334 .… 19.34, 39.31 G G Merel & Co Ltd v Barclays Bank (1963) 107 Sol Jo 542 .… 20.24 GA Investments Pty Ltd v Standard Insurance Co Ltd [1964] WAR 264 .…

32.6 GA Listing and Maintenance Pty Ltd, Re (1994) 15 ACSR 308 .… 11.35 Gabriel Controls Pty Ltd, Re (1982) 6 ACLR 684 .… 18.7, 18.9 Gadsden v Commissioner for Probate Duties (Vic) [1978] VR 653 .… 30.2 Galbraith v Grimshaw and Baxter [1910] 1 KB 339 .… 7.14 Galland, Re (1885) 31 Ch D 296 .… 2.38 Gamboola Cabonne Properties Ltd, Re (1919) 19 SR (NSW) 227 .… 4.27 Gamlen Chemical Co (UK) Ltd v Rochem Ltd [1980] 1 WLR 614; [1980] 1 All ER 1049 (CA) .… 2.35, 2.38 Garafano v Reliance Finance Corp Ltd (1992) 5 BPR 11,941 .… 4.11, 4.12, 4.16 Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd (1993) NSW ConvR 55-662 .… 13.17, 13.18, 13.27, 13.28, 13.30, 13.35 Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd (1998) 194 CLR 395; 155 ALR 614 . … 13.25, 13.26, 13.27, 13.28, 13.29, 13.31, 13.33 Garden Mews-St Leonards Pty Ltd v Butler Pollnow Pty Ltd (1984) 9 ACLR 91 .… 18.23 Gardner v Fitzgerald [1962] Qd R 29 .… 32.40, 32.41 Gardner v Lachlan (1838) 4 My & Cr 129; 41 ER 51 .… 26.13 Gardner v London, Chatham and Dover Rail Co (1867) 2 Ch App 201 .… 21.14 Garfitt v Allen (1887) 34 Ch D 48 .… 2.7, 2.8, 3.36, 10.9, 19.11, 19.14 Garforth v Bradley (1755) 2 Ves Sen 675; 28 ER 430 .… 32.41 Garland, Ex parte (1803) 10 Ves 111; 32 ER 786 .… 2.18 Garland v Ralph Pay & Ransom (1984) 271 Estate Gazette 106 .… 20.35 Garlick v Jackson (1841) 4 Beav 154; 49 ER 297 .… 22.37 Garrett v St Marylebone, Middlesex Justices (1884) 12 QBD 620 .… 1.23, 16.1

Garrud, Re; Ex parte Newitt (1881) 16 Ch D 522 .… 26.4 Garry v Sternbauer Estate (2000) 1 PPSAC (3d) 51 .… 5.38 Garth v Ward (1741) Atk 174; 26 ER 509 .… 33.5, 33.25 Gartside v Silkstone and Dodworth Coal Co (1882) 21 Ch D 762 .… 24.26 Garwood’s Trusts, Re; Garwood v Paynter [1903] 1 Ch 236 .… 6.18, 11.28 Gaskell v Gosling [1896] 1 QB 669 .… 2.5, 18.5, 19.21, 39.25 Gattuso v Geelong Building Society (1989) NSW ConvR 54-343; ANZ ConvR 565 .… 20.22, 20.32 Gauntlet Energy Corp, Re (2003) 5 PPSAC (3d) 236 .… 5.30 Gay v Johnston (1936) 37 SR (NSW) 454 .… 1.23 GBS Meat Industry Pty Ltd v Kress-Dobkin Co, Inc 474 F Supp 1357 .… 5.23 GE Capital Australia v Davis (2002) 180 FLR 250; 11 BPR 20,529 .… 18.13, 19.24 GE Capital Canada Acquisitions Inc v Dix Performance (1995) 8 PPSAC (2d) 197 .… 5.38 Gedye v Matson (1858) 25 Beav 310; 53 ER 655 .… 21.13, 22.7, 22.8, 32.30, 33.2 Gee & Co (Woolwich) Ltd, Re [1975] Ch 52; [1974] 1 All ER 1149 .… 16.33 Gee v Liddell [1913] 2 Ch 62 .… 22.7, 22.8, 30.2, 30.4, 30.7, 30.8, 33.2 Gee, Re; Ex parte Official Receiver (1884) 24 QBD 65 .… 23.14 Geelong Building Society v Thomas (1996) V ConvR 54-545 .… 13.29 Geldard v Hornby (1841) 1 Hare 251; 66 ER 1026 .… 22.31, 22.32 Gellibrand v Murdoch (1937) 58 CLR 236 .… 29.2 General Credit & Discounts Ltd v Glegg (1883) 22 Ch D 549 .… 3.15, 21.1, 22.28, 32.15, 39.56 General Credits (Finance) v Registrar of Ships (1982) 44 ALR 571; 61 FLR

329 .… 9.15, 9.22, 9.23, 9.24, 9.28 General Credits (Finance) Pty Ltd v Brushford Pty Ltd [1975] 2 NSWLR 308 .… 36.16 General Credits (Finance) Pty Ltd v Stoyakovich [1975] Qd R 352 .… 1.51, 20.20 General Credits Ltd v Wenham (1989) 18 NSWLR 570 .… 16.20, 16.34, 19.12, 32.84, 39.2 General Finance Agency and Guarantee Co of Australia Ltd v Perpetual Executors and Trustees Association of Australia Ltd (1902) 27 VLR 739 .… 24.34 General Finance Co v Liberator Benefit Building Society (1878) 10 Ch D 15 .… 19.14 General Furnishing and Upholstery Co v Venn (1863) 2 H&C 153; 159 ER 64 .… 6.21 General Provident Assurance Co, Re; Ex parte National Bank (1872) LR 14 Eq 507 .… 11.8 General Share Trust Co v Chapman (1876) 1 CPD 771 .… 2.39 General South American Co, Re (1876) 2 Ch D 337 .… 8.12 General Steam-Navigation Co v Rolt (1858) 6 CB NS 550; 141 ER 572 .… 35.7 Geneva Finance Ltd, Re; Quigley v Cook (1991) 7 ACSR 415 .… 18.5 Gentle v Faulkner [1900] 2 QB 267 .… 13.53 George Attenborough & Son v Solomon [1913]AC 76 .… 11.16, 11.17 George Barker (Transport) Ltd v Eynon [1974] 1 All ER 900; [1974] 1 WLR 462 .… 6.6, 8.18 George v Cluning (1979) 28 ALR 57 .… 32.45 Georgiades v Edward Wolfe & Co Ltd [1965] Ch 487; [1964] 3 All ER 433 . … 1.38 German v Yates (1915) 32 TLR 52 .… 6.11

Gerty v Mann (1891) 29 LR Ir 7 .… 2.43 Gesellschaft Burgerlichen Rechts v Stockholms Rederiakteibolag Svea (The Brabant) [1967] 1 AB 588 .… 3.7 Gesualdi v Serenar Nominees Pty Ltd (1993) V ConvR 54-478 .… 4.41, 20.5, 20.6 Gethina v Keighley (1878) 9 Ch D 547 .… 39.3 Ghana Commercial Bank v Chandiram [1960] AC 732; [1960] 2 All ER 865 .… 11.10, 14.6, 36.7, 42.18 Ghirardi v Allregal Corp Pty Ltd [2001] WASC 366 .… 35.8, 35.11 Gibbins v Eyden (1869) LR 7 Eq 371 .… 30.2 Gibbon, Re; Moore v Gibbon [1901] 1 Ch 367 .… 36.6 Gibbon v Strathmore (1841) .… 22.5 Gibbs, Re; Ex parte Price (1844) 3 Mont D& De G 586 .… 26.8 Gibbs v Cruickshank (1873) LR 8 CP 454 .… 12.10 Gibbs v Haydon (1882) 30 WR 726 .… 11.6 Gibbs v Messer [1891] AC 248 .… 4.18, 4.22 Gibbs v Ougier (1806) 12 Ves 413; 33 ER 156 .… 30.16 Gibbston Downs Wines Ltd v Perpetual Trust Ltd [2012] NZHC 1022 .… 5.72, 5.91 Gibson v Co-ordinated Building Services Pty Ltd (1989) 4 BPR 9630 .… 4.28 Gibson v Ingo (1847) 6 Hare 112; 67 ER 1103 .… 24.19 Gibson v Jeyes (1801) 6 Ves 266; 31 ER 1044 .… 42.2 Gibson v May (1853) 4 De GM & G 512; 43 ER 607 .… 2.35 Gibson v Nicol (1846) 9 Beav 403; 50 ER 399 .… 33.26 Gibson v Seagrim (1855) 20 Beav 614; 52 ER 741 .… 30.9, 30.12 Gibson v Stock Co Ltd [2010] NZHC 2398; [2011] NZCCLR 29 .… 5.121 Giffen, Re [1998] 1 SCR 91; (1998) 155 DLR (4th) 332 .… 5.4, 5.24, 5.30

Gilbert v Bourne (1895) 6 QLJ .… 4.29 Gilbert J McCaul (Aust) Pty Ltd v Pitt Club Ltd (1957) 59 SR (NSW) 122 . … 1.27 Gilberto v Kenny (1983) 48 ALR 620 .… 3.7 Giles v Kruyer [1921] 3 KB 23 .… 7.11 Gill v Downing (1874) LR 17 Eq 316 .… 6.15, 40.25 Gill v Lewis [1956] 2 QB 1 .… 37.9 Gill v Newton (1866) 14 LT 240; 14 WR 490 .… 20.13, 20.13 Gill v The Continental Union Gas Co Ltd (1872) LR 7 Ex 332 .… 7.8 Gillett v Burke [1996] 1 VR 196 .… 12.24 Gilligan and Nugent v National Bank Ltd [1901] 2 IR 513 .… 32.82 Gilmour v Pyramid Building Society (in liq) (1995) 6 PPR 13,979 .… 6.7, 14.5, 14.11 Gilshenan & Luton v Commissioner of Taxation [1984] 1 Qd R 199 .… 2.37, 2.49 Gino and Associates Pty Ltd v Accordent Pty Ltd (1998) 201 LSJS 60 .… 7.10 Gippsland Steam Navigation Co, Re; Ex parte Chuck (1875) 1 VLR (Eq) 141 .… 2.18 Gladstone v Birley (1817) 2 Mer 401; 35 ER 993 .… 2.2, 2.9 Gladstone’s Mortgage, Re [1916] NZLR 489 .… 4.30 Glafki Shipping Co SA v Pinios Shipping Co (No 1), The Maira (No 2) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 300 .… 9.16 Gleebs Pty Ltd, Re [1933] VLR 293 .… 2.28 Glegg v Bromley [1932] 3 KB 474 .… 13.6 Glendore Pty Ltd v Elders Finance & InvestmentCo Ltd (1984) 4 FCR 130 . … 20.38 Glenn v General Motors Acceptance Corp of Canada Ltd (1992) 3 PPSAC

(2d) 203 .… 5.137 Glodale Pty Ltd v Investec Bank (Australia) Ltd [2007] VSC 276 .… 20.5, 20.6 Glover v Ellison (1872) 20 Wr 408 .… 39.6 Glyn v East & West India Dock Co (1880) 6 QBD 475 .… 3.55 Glyn v Hood (1860) 1 De GF & J 334; 45 ER 388 .… 6.11 Glyn Valley Tramway Co Ltd, Re [1937] Ch 465 .… 21.14 GMAC Commercial Credit Corp of Canada v TCT Logistics Inc (2004) 238 DLR (4th) 487; 6 PPSAC (3d) 163 .… 5.19 GMAC Leaseco Ltd v Tomax Credit Corp (2001) 3 PPSAC (3d) 15 .… 5.94 Gobind das Bhattar v Gajanand Pandey 31 AIR (1944) Cal 189 .… 2.30 Godber v Manning (1914) 33 NZLR 603 .… 7.10 Goddard, Re; Hooker v Buckley (1912) 57 Sol Jo 42 .… 26.18 Goddard v Whyte (1860) 2 Giff 449; 66 ER 188 .… 42.13 Godfrey v Chadwell (1707) 2 Vern 601; 23 ER 993 .… 22.6 Godfrey v Poole (1888) 13 App Cas 497 .… 13.6 Godfrey v Watson (1747) 3 Atk 517; 26 ER 1098 .… 39.45, 40.23 Goldcel Nominees Pty Ltd v Network Finance Ltd [1983] 2 VR 257 .… 20.21, 20.22, 20.23, 20.27, 20.32, 20.33, 20.34, 20.35, 20.37, 20.40 Goldcorp Pty Ltd v Schmierer [1992] ACL Rep 295 Qld 11 .… 18.6 Golden Dew Pty Ltd (rec appd) v Toweran Holdings Pty Ltd [1996] 1 Qd R 235 .… 28.3 Golding v Russell [1983] Qd R 53 .… 16.8, 17.8 Goldsborough Mort & Co Ltd v Hall [1948] VLR 145 .… 1.43 Goldsborough Mort & Co Ltd v Maurice (1938) 58 CLR 773 .… 3.20 Goldsmid v Stonehewer (1852) 9 Hare App xxxiii; 68 ER 778 .… 33.12 Goldstone’s Mortgage, Re [1916] NZLR 489 .… 3.34

Goldstrom v Tallerman (1886) 18 QBD 1 .… 39.43 Goldsworthy v Brickell [1987] Ch 378; [1987] 1 All ER 853 .… 13.20, 13.22, 13.23, 13.24 Gomba Holdings UK Ltd v Homan [1986] 3 All ER 94; [1986] 1 WLR 1301 .… 18.5 Gomba Holdings UK Ltd v Minories Finance Ltd [1988] 1 WLR 1231 .… 18.5 Gomba Holdings UK Ltd v Minories Finance Ltd (No 2) [1993] Ch 171; [1992] 4 All ER 588 (CA) .… 40.1, 40.2, 40.4, 40.6, 40.23, 40.26, 40.31 Gomez v State Bank of NSW [2001] FCA 1059 .… 20.21 Good v Parry [1963] 2 QB 418; [1963] 2 All ER 59 .… 16.34 Goodbody v Miller (1893) 19 VLR 581 .… 13.9 Goodchap v Weaving (1853) 16 Jur 586 .… 2.45, 2.46 Goodchild v Bradbury [2006] All ER (D) 247 .… 13.24 Goode v Burton (1847) 1 Ex 189; 154 ER 80 .… 2.10 Goodman v Grierson (1813) 2 Ball & B 274 .… 1.27 Goodman v Robinson (1886) 18 QBD 332 .… 6.19 Good’s Lease, Re [1954] 1 WLR 309; [1954] 1 All ER 275 .… 37.11 Goodwin v Gray (1874) 22 WR 312 .… 42.13 Goodwin v Waghorn (1835) 4 LJ Ch 172 .… 3.38 Goodwyn v Steeles-Glacier Home Delivery Freezer Food Service Pty Ltd [1987] ASC 55-597 .… 6.21 Gordillo v Weguelin (1877) 5 Ch D 287 .… 39.43 Gordon Grant & Co Ltd v Boos [1926] AC 781 .… 16.7, 16.11, 17.10 Gordon v Fowler (1901) 17 TLR 243 .… 13.14 Gordon v Graham (1716) 2 Eq Cas Abr 598;22 ER 502; 7 Vin Abr 52, pl 3; 22 ER 502 .… 25.7, 39.11 Gordon v Holland (1913) 82 LJ PC 81 .… 25.7

Gordon v Horsfall (1846) 5 Moo PCC 393; 13 ER 542 .… 21.14, 33.7 Gordon, Re; Ex parte Official Receiver (1889) 61 LT 299 .… 12.4, 12.5, 12.9, 19.14, 39.15, 39.16 Gore v Stacpoole (1813) 1 Dow 18 (HL); 3 ER 607 .… 21.7, 22.39 Gorgier v Mieville (1824) 3 B & C 45; 107 ER 651 .… 21.3 Gorringe v Irwell India Rubber and Gutta Percha Works (1886) 34 Ch D 128 .… 6.13, 6.14, 26.2 Gosling v Gaskell [1897] AC 578 .… 18.5 Goss v Chilcott [1996] AC 788; [1997] 2 All ER 110 .… 35.8 Gossip v Wright (1863) 32 LJ Ch 648 .… 1.30 Gottlieb v Cranch (1853) 4 De G M & G440;43 ER 579 .… 32.73 Gough, Re; Lloyd v Gough (1894) 70 LT 755 .… 2.36 Gough v Wood & Co [1894] 1 QB 713 (CA) .… 1.20 Gouthwaite v Rippon (1839) 8 LJ Ch 139 .… 20.44 Government Insurance Office (NSW) v KA Reed Services Pty Ltd [1988] VR 829 .… 19.40 Government Stock and Other Securities Investment Co v Manila Rly Co [1897] AC 81 .… 8.10, 8.11, 8.16, 8.19, 8.20 Gower v Gower (1783) 1 Cox Eq Cas 53; 29 ER 1059 .… 36.6 Grace Rymer Investments Ltd v Waite [1958] Ch 831; [1958] 2 All ER 777 . … 12.7, 12.13, 12.21, 12.23, 12.24 Graham v Graham (1871) 2 VLR (Eq) 145 .… 18.4 Graham v Lee (1857) 23 Beav 388; 53 ER 152 .… 13.51 Graham v Portacom New Zealand Ltd [2004] 2 NZLR 528 .… 5.4, 5.24, 5.25, 5.30, 5.41, 5.71 Graham v Seal (1918) 88 LJ Ch 31 .… 32.41, 32.55, 40.9 Grand Junction Co Ltd v Bates [1954] 2 QB 160; [1954] 2 All ER 385 .… 13.53, 37.11

Grange, Re; Chadwick v Grange [1907] 2 Ch 20 .… 20.46 Grangeside Properties Ltd v Collingwood Securities Ltd [1964] 1 All ER 143 .… 1.28 Grant v Humphery (1862) 3 F & F 162; 176 ER 73 .… 2.26 Graves v Wright (1842) .… 22.5 Gray v Bonsall [1904] 1 KB 601 .… 37.11 Gray v Dowman (1858) 27 LJ Ch 702 .… 22.22, 30.7 Gray v Royal Bank of Canada (1997) 143 DLR (4th) 179; 12 PPSAC (2d) 126 .… 5.30 Gray v Stone (1893) 69 LT 282 .… 30.14 Great Eastern Railway Co v Lord’s Trustee [1909] AC 109 .… 2.3 Green v All Motors Ltd [1917] 1 KB 625 .… 2.22, 2.27 Green v Biggs (1885) 52 LT 680 .… 21.22 Green v Briggs (1848) 6 Hare 632; 67 ER 1315 .… 40.14 Green v Burns (1879) 6 LR Ir 173 .… 19.12 Green v Rheinberg (1911) 104 LT 149 .… 12.7, 12.13, 12.23, 19.30, 24.21 Green v Schneller (2002) 29 Fam LR 346 .… 13.8 Green v Walker 45 A (2d) 742 (1900) .… 39.19 Green v Whitehead [1930] 1 Ch 38 .… 11.7 Green v Wynn (1869) LR 4 Ch App 204 .… 21.13, 32.30 Greenberg v Rapoport (1970) 10 DLR (3d) 737 .… 35.3 Greendon Investments v Mills (1973) 226 Estates Gazette 1957 .… 20.45 Greene v Foster (1882) 22 Ch D 566 .… 22.50 Greenhalgh, Re [1982] Qd R 99 .… 33.11 Greening v Beckford (1832) 5 Sim 195; 58 ER 310 .… 26.23 Greenough v Littler (1880) 15 Ch D 93 .… 22.15, 22.17 Greenwood v Sutcliffe [1892] 1 Ch 1 .… 32.47, 33.20, 40.9

Greenwood v Taylor (1845) 14 Sim 505; 60 ER 454 .… 35.2 Greer v Kettle [1938] AC 156 .… 17.1, 17.11, 39.11 Greg, Re; Fordham v Greg [1921] 2 Ch 24 .… 36.8 Gregg v Slater (1856) 22 Beav 314; 52 ER 1129 .… 40.9 Gregory Love & Co, Re [1916] 1 Ch 203 .… 8.11, 8.18, 8.21 Gregory v Pilkington (1857) 26 LJ Ch 177 .… 39.58 Gregson, Re (1858) 26 Beav 87; 53 ER 829 .… 2.39 Gregson, Re; Christison v Bolam (1887) 36 Ch D 223 .… 1.53, 31.5, 31.7 Greig v Watson (1881) 7 VLR (E) 79 .… 4.8, 4.9, 16.4, 19.7, 31.1, 31.11, 33.13 Gresham Life Assurance Society v Crowther [1915] 1 Ch 214 .… 26.11 Gresley v Moulsey (1861) 3 De GF & J 433; 45 ER 945 .… 39.12 Greswold v Marsham (1685) 2 Cas in Ch 170; 22 ER 898 .… 22.6 Grey v Manitoba & North Western Railway Co of Canada [1897] AC 254 . … 1.43 Greyvest Leasing Inc v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (1991) 1 PPSAC (2d) 264 .… 5.82, 5.91 Greyvest Leasing Inc v Merkur (1994) 8 PPSAC (2d) 203 .… 5.121 Grgic v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1994) 33 NSWLR 202 .… 4.12, 4.19, 4.29, 17.3 Gribble v Stearman & Kaplan Inc 239 A (2d) 573 (1968) .… 30.17 Grierson v National Provincial Bank of England [1913] 2 Ch 18 .… 24.43 Griffith v Hodge (1979) 2 BPR 9474 .… 4.28 Griffith v Pound (1890) 45 Ch D 553 .… 22.5, 22.7, 31.1, 33.2 Griffiths v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1994) 123 ALR 111 .… 6.20 Grigson v Taplin and Co (1915) 85 LJ Ch 75 .… 8.14 Grimwade v Mutual Society (1884) 52 LT 409 .… 1.4

Grogan, Re (2012) 476 BR 270 .… 5.38 Grogan v Orr [2001] NSWCA 114 .… 2.48 Groom v Cheesewright [1895] 1 Ch 730 .… 2.37 Groongal Pastoral Co Ltd (in liq) v Falkiner (1924) 35 CLR 157 .… 4.2, 4.24, 17.11, 31.11, 34.3 Grose v St George Commercial Credit Union Limited (1991) NSW ConVR 55-586 .… 20.38 Grossman v Saunders (1989) 237 Va 113; 376 SE 2d 66 .… 5.43 Grouse Nest Resources Ltd v First National Mortgage Corp (1977) 1 RPR (Can) 246 .… 36.3 Groutco (Aust) Pty Ltd v Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd [1985] 1 Qd R 238 .… 7.10 Grove v Portal [1902] 1 Ch 727 .… 3.43, 13.53 Grove v Public Trustee [1931] NZLR 1071 .… 4.30, 14.16 Groves v Lane (1852) 16 Jur 854 .… 33.4 Grugeon v Gerrard (1840) 4 Y & C 119; 160 ER 945 .… 16.2, 33.7 Grundy v Ley [1984] 2 NSWLR 467 .… 4.38, 17.11, 32.65 Guaranty State Bank & Trust Co v Van Diest Supply Company 30 Kan App 2d 1108 (2002) .… 5.87 Guaranty Trust Co of Canada v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce [1989] OJ No 1081 (Ont HC); [1993] OJ No 2152 .… 5.87 Guardian Mortgages Pty Ltd v Miller [2004] NSWSC 174 .… 3.17 Guardian Mortgages Pty Ltd v Miller [2004] NSWSC 1236 .… 19.11, 21.11 Guardian Mortgages Pty Ltd v Miller (2004) 12 BPR 22,833 .… 21.11, 32.16 Guardian Securities Ltd, Re [1984] 1 NSWLR 95 .… 11.43 Guardner v Boucher (1850) 13 Beav 68; 51 ER 26 .… 16.40, 22.19 Gubbins v Creed (1804) 2 Sch & Lef 214 .… 32.19, 39.31

Gulf and Fraser Fishermen’s Union v Calm C Fish Ltd [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 188 .… 9.26 Gunn v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1922) 18 Tas LR 26 .… 4.25, 32.25 Gunn v Land Mortgage Bank of Victoria Ltd (1890) 12 ALT 49 .… 20.16 Gunnion v Ardex Acceptance Pty Ltd [1968] VR 547 .… 12.3, 12.11, 12.18, 19.7, 19.10 Gunsbourg, Re; Ex parte Trustee (1919) 88 LJKB 479 .… 6.12 Gurfinkel v Bentley Pty Ltd (1966) 116 CLR 98 .… 1.25, 1.27 Gurnell v Gardner (1863) 4 Giff 626; 66 ER 857 .… 6.11, 6.14 Gurney v Jackson (1853) 1 Sm & G App xxvi; 67 ER 1330 .… 22.47 Gurney v Seppings (1846) 2 Ph 40; 41 ER 856 .… 15.3 Guthrie v ANZ Banking Group Ltd (1989) ANZ ConvR 221 .… 13.32 Guthrie v ANZ Banking Group Ltd (1991) 23 NSWLR 672; 14 Fam LR 773 .… 11.3, 11.4, 14.17, 36.4 Guy v Churchill (1887) 35 Ch D 489 .… 2.48 Gwembe Valley Development Co Ltd v Koshy [2000] 2 BCLC 705 .… 18.6, 28.2 GWH Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1994) 6 BPR 14,073 .… 1.40, 3.8, 10.1, 39.60 Gwynne v Edwards (1825) 2 Russ 289n; 38 ER 349 .… 30.10 Gy, Ree; Ex parte Smith (1841) 2 Mont D & De G 314 .… 3.43 Gyles v Hall (1726) 2 P Wms 378; 24 ER 774 .… 32.41, 32.44 H H v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2010) 188 FCR 393 .… 5.5 H & S Credits Ltd, Re; Tucker v Roberts [1969] Qd R 280 .… 14.6, 36.9 H & W Wallace Ltd, Re [1994] 1 NZLR 235 .… 2.49 H S Bird & Co v The Ship ‘Karu’ (1927) 27 SR (NSW) 476 .… 2.51

Habib Bank Ltd v Tailor [1982] 3 All ER 561; [1982] 1 WLR 1218 .… 16.31, 17.8 Haddad v AMH Import & Export Co Pty Ltd [1993] ACL Rep 295 SA 1 .… 8.19 Haddington Island Quarry Co Ltd v Huson [1911] AC 727 .… 20.22 Hagan v Waterhouse (1991) 34 NSWLR 308 .… 39.42 Haigh, Ex parte (1805) 11 Ves 403; 32 ER 1143 .… 3.37, 3.40 Haimes v Goode (1932) 33 SR (NSW) 1 .… 29.2 Haji Abdul Rahman v Mohomed Hassan [1917] AC 209 .… 4.5 Hal Wright Motor Sales Ltd and Industrial Development Bank (1975) 8 OR (23d) 76 .… 20.37 Halcyon Skies (No 2), The [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 22 .… 16.7, 17.8 Hale, Re; Lilley v Foad [1899] 2 Ch 107 .… 16.33, 18.8 Hales v Cox (1863) 32 Beav 118; 55 ER 46 .… 30.13 Halesowen Presswork & Assemblies Ltd v Westminster Bank Ltd [1971] 1 QB .… 2.30 Halifax Building Society v Thomas [1996] Ch 217; [1995] 4 All ER 673 .… 20.43, 20.44, 32.1, 39.21 Halifax Mortgage Services Ltd v Muirhead (1997) 76 P & CR 418 .… 42.13 Halifax Mortgage Services Ltd v Stepsky [1996] 1 Ch 1 .… 42.5 Hall, Re; Ex parte Rocke (1871) 6 Ch App 795 .… 23.5 Hall v Busst (1960) 104 CLR 206 .… 1.27, 13.50 Hall v Hall [1891] P 302 .… 2.49 Hall v Hall [1911] 1 Ch 487 .… 30.7 Hall v Heward (1886) 32 Ch D 430 .… 1.37, 17.5, 19.21, 19.34, 21.13, 22.11, 32.20, 32.21, 33.3, 39.20, 40.9 Hall v Hubbard [1931] VLR 197 .… 17.1, 17.5 Hall v Richards (1961) 108 CLR 84 .… 23.4

Hall v West End Advance Co (1883) Cab & El 161 .… 24.43 Hall v Westpac Banking Corp (1987) 4 BPR 9578 .… 3.7, 3.14 Hall-Dare’s Contract (1882) 21 Ch D 41 .… 24.12 Hall (William) (Contractors) Ltd, Re (in liq) [1967] 2 All ER 1150 .… 32.53 Hallett, Re; Ex parte Cocks, Biddulph & Co [1894] 2 QB 256 .… 23.7 Hallett v Furze (1885) 31 Ch D 312 .… 22.21, 33.22 Hallet’s Estate, Re (1879–80) LR 13 Ch D 696 .… 5.33 Halliday v Holgate (1868) LR 3 Ex 299 .… 1.5 Hallifax Property Corp Pty Ltd v GIFC Ltd (1987) 4 BPR 9708 .… 20.27, 20.30, 20.38 Halliwell v Tanner (1830) 1 Russ & M 633; 39 ER 243 .… 30.3 Halsall v Brizell [1957] Ch 169; [1957] 1 All ER 371 .… 19.40 Halsall v Egbunike (1963) 107 Sol Jo 514 .… 40.23 Halstead, Re; Ex parte Westpac BankingCorporation (1991) 31 FCR 337 .… 13.27 Haly v Barry (1868) LR 3 Ch App 452 .… 24.50 Hamilton v Denny (1809) 1 Ball & B 199 .… 19.39 Hamilton v Hunter (1982) 7 ACLR 295 .… 8.11, 8.16, 8.18, 8.19 Hamilton v Kaljo (1989) 17 NSWLR 381 .… 16.36 Hamilton v Royse (1804) 2 Sch & Lef 315 .… 24.15 Hamilton’s Windsor Ironworks, Re; Ex parte Pitman and Edwards (1879) 12 Ch D707 .… 8.12, 26.23 Hammersley v Knowlys (1798) 2 Esp 666; 170 ER 490 .… 32.52 Hammersmith LBC v Top Shop Ltd [1990] Ch 237 .… 3.27 Hammerstone Pty Ltd v Lewis [1994] 2 QdR 267 .… 2.36, 2.37 Hammond, Re (1903) 3 SR (NSW) 270 .… 11.12 Hammonds v Barclay (1802) 2 East 227; 102 ER 356 .… 2.20

Hamp v Bygrave (1983) 266 EG 720 .… 1.21 Hampshire v Bradley (1845) 2 Coll 34; 63 ER 624 .… 40.29 Hampshire Land Co, Re [1896] 2 Ch 743 .… 42.5 Hampton v Hodges (1803) 8 Ves 105; 32 ER 292 .… 42.20 Hanbury v Litchfield (1833) 2 My & K 629; 39 ER 1084 .… 24.21 Hancock, Re (1888) 57 LJ Ch 793; 59 LT 197 .… 34.2, 34.6 Hand v Blow [1901] 2 Ch 721 .… 18.5 Handevel Pty Ltd v Comptroller of Stamps (Vic)(1985) 157 CLR 177 .… 1.7, 8.1 Handman and Wilcox’s Contract, Re [1902] 1 Ch 599 .… 12.24 Hang Seng Bank Ltd v Mee Cheong Investment Co Ltd [1970] HKLR 94 .… 22.35, 22.36 Hang Seng Bank Ltd v Yeung Sau-min [1986] HKLR 273 .… 22.41 Haniotis v Dimitriou [1983] VR 498 .… 19.26 Hanlon v Law Society [1981] AC 124 .… 7.1 Hansard v Hardy (1812) 18 Ves 455; 34 ER 389 .… 24.18 Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd v Ian Jones Ericson t/as Flea’s Concreting (2012) 260 FLR 151 .… 41.1 Hanson v Derby (1700) 2 Vern 392; 23 ER 852 .… 42.21 Happé v Happé [1991] 4 All ER 527 .… 13.49, 42.2 Harbert’s Case (1584) 3 Co Rep 11b; 76 ER 647 .… 30.17 Harding v Harding (1886) 17 QBD 442 .… 6.5 Harding v Tingey (1864) 10 Jur NS 872 .… 33.7 Harding v Tingey (1864) 34 LJ Ch 13;4 New Rep 10 .… 21.14, 32.6 Hardingham v Nicholls (1745) 3 Atk 304; 26 ER 977 .… 24.11 Hardwick v Mynd (1793) 1 Anst 111; 145 ER 815 .… 35.5 Hardy, Re; Ex parte Hardy (1832) 2 Deac & Ch 393 .… 24.15

Hardy v Motor Insurers’ Bureau [1964] 2 QB 745; [1964] 2 All ER 742 .… 6.15 Hare v Horton (1833) 5 B & Ad 715; 110 ER 954 .… 1.21 Hare v Nicoll [1966] 2 QB 130 .… 1.27 Hari Sanker Paul v Kedar Nath Saha [1939] 2 All ER 737 .… 3.36 Harlock v Ashberry (1882) 19 Ch D 539 .… 16.33, 32.88 Harman & Co Solicitor Nominee Co v Secureland Mortgage Investment Nominees Ltd [1992] 2 NZLR 416 .… 12.17 Harman and Uxbridge and Rickmansworth Railway Co, Re (1883) 24 Ch D 720 .… 11.32, 14.8 Harman v Glencross [1986] Fam 81 .… 7.5 Harmer v Bean (1853) 3 Car & Kir 307; 175 ER 566 .… 12.13 Harmer v Priestly (1853) 16 Beav 569; 51 ER 899 .… 32.40 Harold v Plenty [1901] 2 Ch 314 .… 3.36 Harold Meggit Ltd v Discount and Finance Ltd (1939) 56 WN (NSW) 23 .… 18.9 Harper v Aplin (1886) 54 LT 383 .… 42.20 Harpham v Shacklock (1881) 19 Ch D 207 .… 2.18, 40.4, 40.5 Harpur v Ariadne Aust Ltd (SC (Qld), Williams J, 5 December 1994) .… 28.3 Harrington v Harrington 427 A (2d) 1314 (1981) .… 39.19 Harrington v Price (1832) 3 B & Ad 170; 110 ER 63 .… 24.40 Harris v Jenkins (1922) 31 CLR 341 .… 13.21 Harris v Western Australian Exim Corp (1994) 56 FCR 1; 129 ALR 387 .… 20.38 Harrison v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1996) [1999] Q ConvR 54-531; [1999] V ConvR 54-600 .… 20.30 Harrison v Guest (1860) 8 HL Cas 481; 11 ER 517 .… 13.23

Harrison v Hart (1726) 2 Eq Cas Abr 6; 22 ER 5 .… 21.1 Harrison v Lederman [1978] VR 590 .… 2.47 Harrison v Melhem (2008) 72 NSWLR 380 .… 5.5 Harrison (W F) & Co Ltd v Burke [1956] 2 All ER 169; [1956] 1 WLR 419 . … 6.7 Harrold v Plenty [1901] 2 Ch 314 .… 1.35, 6.16, 21.1, 21.3 Harryman v Collins (1854) 18 Beav 11; 52 ER 5 .… 19.35 Hart, Re; Ex parte Caldicott (1884) 25 Ch D 716 .… 23.7 Hart v Barnes [1983] 2 VR 517 .… 8.14 Hart v Hawthorne (1880) 42 LT 79 .… 22.47 Hart v O’Connor [1985] AC 1000; [1985] 2 All ER 880 .… 4.15, 11.20, 11.21, 13.12, 13.22 Harter v Colman (1882) 19 Ch D 630 .… 31.9 Hartl v Cowen (1982) [1993] 2 Qd R 633 .… 32.40, 32.65, 39.2 Hartley v Humphris [1928] St R Qd 83 .… 20.23 Hartley v Russell (1825) 2 Sim & St 244; 57 ER 339 .… 21.13 Harvey, Re; Harvey v Hobday [1896] 1 Ch 137 .… 36.5 Harvey v Brydges (1845) 14 M & W 437; 153 ER 546 .… 19.19 Harvey v McWatters (1948) 49 SR NSW 173 .… 20.38, 33.7 Harvey v Municipal Permanent Investment Building Society (1884) 26 Ch D 273 .… 3.15, 16.7, 32.17, 32.65 Harvey v Tebbutt (1820) 1 Jac & W 197; 37 ER 350 .… 21.7, 22.39 Harvey’s Estate, Re (1886) 17 LR Ir 165 .… 2.37 Harwood, Re (1887) 35 Ch D 471 .… 20.1 Harwood v Kirby (1829) 1 Paige Chancery 469 .… 11.6 Haskew v Equity Trustees Executors and Agency Co Ltd (1919) 27 CLR 231; [1918] VLR 634 .… 13.22, 13.24

Hatch v Skelton (1855) 20 Beav 453; 52 ER 678 .… 36.6 Hatmax Nominees Pty Ltd v BlannEnterprises Pty Ltd [1983] 3 NSWLR 338 .… 32.7 Hatton v Car Maintenance Co Ltd [1915] 1 Ch 621 .… 2.21, 2.22 Hatton v Harris [1892] AC 547 .… 39.48 Haupiri Courts Ltd (No 2), Re [1969] NZLR 353 .… 4.28 Hawes, Re; Ex parte Sadler (1881) 19 Ch D 122 .… 23.15 Hawke v Edwards (1947) 48 SR (NSW) 21 .… 36.3 Hawkes, Re; Ackerman v Lockhart [1898] 2 Ch 1 .… 2.43, 2.47 Hawkes, Re; Reeve v Hawkes [1912] 2 Ch 251 .… 29.4 Hawkesbury Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Custom Credit Corporation Ltd (1994) 8 BPR 15,581; (1995) NSW ConvR ¶55-731 .… 20.21, 39.43 Hawkins, Re [1972] Ch 714 .… 41.3 Hawkins v Gaden (1925) 37 CLR 183 .… 32.74 Hawkins v Woodgate (1844) 7 Beav 565; 49 ER 1185 .… 32.73 Hawks v McArthur [1951] 1 All ER 22 .… 7.7 Hay v Swedish and Norwegian Rly Co (1889) 5 TLR 460 .… 8.2 Hayes and Harlington UDC v Williams’ Trustee [1936] Ch 315 .… 22.9 Hayes Securities Ltd v Bambury [1991] 1 NZLR 304 .… 1.25, 1.28, 1.29, 3.6 Haynes v Forshaw (1853) 11 Hare 93; 68 ER 1201 .… 30.14, 30.15 Haynes v Haynes (1857) 3 Jur NS 504 .… 16.9 Hayward v Smith (1887) 9 LR (NSW) (Eq) 11 .… 9.7 Haywood v Martin (1883) 9 VLR (E) 143 .… 18.19 Haywood v Roadknight [1927] VLR 512 .… 42.2 Head v Egerton (1734) 3 P Wms 280; 24 ER 1065 .… 24.40 Head v Kelk [1963] SR (NSW) 340 .… 3.13, 11.15

Heald v O’Connor [1971] 2 All ER 1105 .… 13.45 Heales v M’Murray (1846) 23 Beav 401; 53 ER 157 .… 19.21 Healey v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (NSWCA, 8 December 1998, unreported) .… 32.52 Health & Life Care Ltd (in liq) v South Australian Asset Management Corporation (1995) 65 SASR 48 .… 23.6 Heams v Bance (1748) 3 Atk 630; 26 ER 1162 .… 25.6 Heath v Chinn (1908) 98 LT 855 .… 40.10 Heath v Crealock (1874) LR 10 Ch App 22 .… 19.18, 24.12, 24.40 Heath v Pugh (1881) 6 QBD 345 .… 12.5, 12.9, 16.4, 16.21, 16.32, 19.13, 21.2 Heathstar Properties Ltd, Re [1966] 1 WLR 993; [1966] 1 All ER 628 .… 1.40, 11.43 Heathstar Properties Ltd (No 2), Re [1966] 1 WLR 993; [1966] 1 All ER 1000 .… 11.43 Heaton and Dugard Ltd v Cutting Bros Ltd [1925] 1 KB 655 .… 8.19 Heid v Reliance Finance Corp Pty Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 326 .… 3.36, 4.31, 24.25, 24.29, 24.45, 28.14, 28.15, 28.16, 28.22 Heidelberg Canada Graphic Equipment Ltd v Arthur Andersen Inc (1992) 7 BLR (2d) 236 .… 5.29 Heighington v Grant (1845) 1 Ph 500; 41 ER 761 .… 39.3 Heinicke Instruments Company v Republic Corporation (1976) 543 F 2d 700 .… 5.43, 5.44 Heininger, Re (1908) 8 SR (NSW) 120 .… 29.3 Helbert Wagg & Co Ltd, Re [1956] Ch 323 .… 1.43 Hele v Lord Bexley (1855) 20 Beav 127; 52 ER 551 .… 39.14 Helmville Ltd v Astilleros Espanoles SA ‘The Jocelyn’ [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 569 .… 20.37 Helstan Securities Ltd v Hertfordshire County Council [1978] 3 All ER 262 .

… 6.19, 10.4 Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd [1968] 1 QB 549 .… 11.33 Hemmings v Stoke Poges Golf Club [1920] 1 KB 720 .… 19.20 Henderson v Amadio (No 1) (1995) 140 ALR 391 .… 42.6 Henderson v Astwood [1894] AC 150 .… 20.4, 20.40, 37.5, 40.9, 40.19 Hennessey, Re (1842) 2 Dr & War 555 .… 26.21 Hennessy v Rourke (1893) 15 LR (NSW) 33 .… 17.1 Henry Roach (Petroleum) Pty Ltd v Credit House (Vic) Pty Ltd [1976] VR 309 .… 20.22, 20.23, 20.33, 20.37 Henry Walker Contracting Pty Ltd v Pegasus Gold (Aust) Pty Ltd (SC (NT), 1998, unreported) .… 2.26 Henson, Re; Chester v Henson [1908] 2 Ch 356 .… 11.18 Heperu Pty Ltd v Belle (2009) 76 NSWLR 230 .… 5.33 Hepworth v Heslop (1844) 3 Hare 485; 67 ER 472 .… 40.20 Hepworth v Hill (1862) 30 Beav 476; 54 ER 974 .… 29.2 Herman v Gill (1921) WALR 10 .… 32.12 Herman v Jeuchner (1885) 15 QBD 561 .… 13.46 Hermann v Hodges (1873) LR 16 Eq 18 .… 1.33, 21.18 Herries v Griffiths (1854) 2 WR 72 .… 16.10 Hervey v Wynn (1905) 22 TLR 93 .… 16.29 Heslop v Metcalfe (1837) 3 My & Cr 183, 40 ER 894 .… 2.35 Hewett v Court (1983) 149 CLR 639 .… 2.9, 2.10, 18.15 Hewitt v Loosemore (1851) 9 Hare 449; 68 ER 586 .… 24.9, 24.15, 24.23, 24.37, 24.39, 42.5 Hewitt v Nanson (1858) 28 LJ Ch 49 .… 21.23 Hewson v Shelley [1914] 2 Ch 13 .… 24.12 Heydon, Re (1969) 86 LQR 229 .… 32.13

Heyman v Dubois (1871) LR 13 Eq 158 .… 30.9, 30.13 HG & HR Securities Pty Ltd v Sayer (2009) 14 BPR 27,045 .… 20.11 HG & R Nominees Pty Ltd v Fava (1997) 2 VR 368 .… 27.11 Hi Fi Equipment (Cabinets) Ltd, Re [1988] BCLC 65 .… 8.4 Hiatt v Hillman (1871) 19 WR 694 .… 20.6 Hibblewhite v M’Morine (1840) 6 M & W 200; 151 ER 380 .… 6.17 Hibernian Bank vYourell (No 2) [1919] 1 IR 310 .… 16.30, 18.114 Hickes v Cooke (1816) 4 Dow 16; 3 ER 1074 .… 32.19 Hickey v Heydon (1895) 16 LR (NSW) Eq 49 .… 20.6 Hickey v Powershift Tractors Pty Ltd (1998) 9 BPR 17,339 .… 1.35, 4.19 Hickman Equipment (1985) Ltd, Re (2003) 5 PPSAC (3d) 93 .… 5.38 Hickson v Darlow (1883) 23 Ch D 690 .… 20.36, 20.37 Hickson v Fitzgerald (1826) 1 Mol 14n .… 40.15 Hiern v Mill (1806) 13 Ves 114; 33 ER 237 .… 24.15 Higgins v Frankis (1846) 10 Jur 328; 15 LJ Ch 329 .… 22.22, 31.4 Higgins v Scott (1831) 2 B & Ad 413; 109 ER 1196 .… 2.51 Higginson v German Athenaeum Ltd (1916) 32 TLR 277 .… 16.1 Higgs v Scott (1849) 7 CB 63; 137 ER 26 .… 12.13 Higton Enterprises Pty Ltd v BFC Finance Ltd p1997] 1 Qd R 168 .… 20.22, 20.30 Hildyard, Re; Ex parte Smith (1842) 2 Mont D & De G 587 .… 3.38, 3.43, 15.2 Hiley v The Peoples Prudential Assurance Co Ltd (1938) 60 CLR 468 .… 1.53 Hilger Analytical Ltd v Rank Precision Industries Ltd [1984] BCLC 301 .… 8.2 Hill, Re (1886) 33 Ch D 266 .… 2.49

Hill, Re (1886) 36 Ch D 266 .… 2.49 Hill, Re; Ex parte Southall (1848) 17 LJ Bktcy 21 .… 2.22, 2.28 Hill v Adams (1741) 2 Atk 39; 26 ER 420 .… 33.16 Hill v Anderson Meat Industries Ltd [1971] 1 NSWLR 868; [1972] 2 NSWLR 704 .… 35.10 Hill v Browne (1844) Drury t Sug 426 .… 19.39, 24.33, 39.19 Hill v Edmonds (1852) 5 De G & Sm 603; 64 ER 1262 .… 22.8, 22.22 Hill v Fox (1859) 4 H & N 359 .… 13.47 Hill v Kirkwood (1880) 28 WR 358 .… 20.36, 20.37 Hill v Peters [1918] 2 Ch 273 .… 26.1 Hill v Rowlands [1897] 2 Ch 361 .… 32.36 Hill v Simpson (1802) 7 Ves 152; 32 ER 63 .… 11.18 Hill v Ziymack (1908) 7 CLR 352 .… 2.17 Hill Pottery Co, Re (1886) 15 WR 97 .… 3.29 Hillpalm Pty Ltd v Heaven’s Door Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 59; 220 CLR 472; 211 ALR 588 .… 4.12 Hillston v Bar Mordecai [2003] NSWSC 89 .… 13.29 Hilton v Barker Booth & Eastwood [2005] 1 WLR 567 .… 42.7 Hilton v Tucker (1888) 39 Ch D 669 .… 1.11 Hinckley and Country Building Society v Henny [1953] 1 WLR 352; [1953] 1 All ER 515 .… 3.23, 19.10 Hinde v Blake (1841) 11 LJ Ch 26 .… 19.34, 39.28 Hindmarsh Building Society v Manhire (1979) 20 SASR 206 .… 20.14 Hiorns v Holtom (1852) 16 Beav 259; 51 ER 778 .… 24.28 Hipkins v Amery (1860) 2 Giff 292; 66 ER 122 .… 24.16 Hippesley v Spencer (1820) 5 Madd 422; 56 ER 956 .… 42.20 Hiscox v Greenwood (1802) 4 Esp 174; 170 ER 681 .… 2.24

Hiscox v Outhwaite [1992] 1 AC 562 .… 1.4 Hitchins v Lander (1807) G Coop 34; 35 ER 468 .… 33.14 Hitchock v Carew (1853) Kay App xiv; 69 ER 319 .… 16.35 Hoare, Re; Hoare v Owen [1892] 3 Ch 94 .… 39.18 Hoare (Charles) & Co v Hove Bungalows Ltd (1912) 56 Sol Jo 686 .… 12.15 Hobart v Abbot (1731) 2 P Wms 643; 24 ER 897 .… 22.7, 33.16 Hobday v Peters (1860) 28 Beav 349; 54 ER 400 .… 39.19 Hobson v Bell (1839) 2 Beav 17; 48 ER 1084 .… 20.19, 20.26 Hobson v Gorringe [1897] 1 Ch 182 .… 1.20, 3.26 Hobson v Shearwood (1845) 8 Beav 486; 50 ER 191 .… 2.51 Hockey v Western [1898] 1 Ch 350 .… 6.14, 19.45 Hockley v Bantock (1826) 1 Russ 141; 38 ER 55 .… 3.40 Hockley and Papworth v Goldstein (1920) 90 LJKB 111 .… 6.7 Hodge, Ex parte (1857) 26 LJ Bcy 77 .… 39.42 Hodges v Croydon Canal Co (1840) 3 Beav 86;49 ER 34 .… 40.9 Hodgson v Hodgson (1837) 2 Keen 704; 48 ER 800 .… 35.8, 39.45 Hodgson v Marks [1971] Ch 892; [1971] 2 All ER 684 .… 24.21 Hodson v Deans [1903] 2 Ch 647 .… 20.22, 20.40 Hodson and Howes’ Contract, Re (1887) 35 Ch D 668 .… 20.50 Hogan v Baird (1843) 4 Dr & War 296 .… 40.13 Hogg v Hogg [2007] EWHC 2240 (Ch); [2007] All ER (D) 54 .… 13.24 Hoghton v Hoghton (1852) 15 Beav 278; 51 ER 545 .… 13.31 Holden v Hearn (1839) 1 Beav 445; 48 ER 1012 .… 3.43 Holden v Silkstone and Dodworth Coal and Iron Co (1881) 30 WR 98 .… 22.1 Holford v Burnell (1687) 1 Vern 448; 23 ER 577 .… 33.8

Holford v Yate (1855) 1 K & J 677; 69 ER 631 .… 22.31, 22.32, 22.33 Holland, Re (1928) 28 SR (NSW) 369 .… 30.9 Holland, Re; Ex parte Alston (1868) LR 4 Ch App 168 .… 30.13, 30.14 Holland, Re; Gregg v Holland [1902] 2 Ch 360 .… 13.6, 13.51 Holland v Hodgson (1872) LR 7 CP 328 .… 1.20, 3.26 Holley v Metropolitan Permanent Building Soc [1983] 2 Qd R 756 .… 3.32 Hollier v Eyre (1840) 9 C & F 1; 8 ER 313 .… 35.7 Hollingshead, Re (1888) 37 Ch D 651 .… 16.33 Hollis v Bulpett (1865) 12 LT 293 .… 33.8 Hollis v Claridge (1813) 4 Taunt 807; 128 ER 549 .… 2.22, 2.33, 2.40 Hollis v Wingfield [1940] Ch 336; [1940] 1 All ER 531 .… 39.24 Holman v Vaux (1615) Toth 133; 21 ER 146 .… 1.14 Holme v Brunskill (1878) 3 QBD 495 .… 35.7, 35.8 Holme v Fieldsend [1911] WN 111 .… 32.55 Holmes, Re (1885) 29 Ch D 786 .… 26.5, 26.23 Holmes, Re; Ex parte Ashworth [1908] 2 KB 812 .… 23.15 Holmes v Bell (1841) 3 Man & G 213 .… 36.15 Holmes v Cowcher [1970] 1 All ER 1224 .… 16.30 Holmes v Dring (1788) 2 Cox 1; 30 ER 1 .… 11.14 Holmes v Kennard (1985) 49 P & CR 202 .… 32.74 Holmes v Penney (1856) 3 K & J 90; 69 ER 1035 .… 13.6, 13.7 Holmes v Turner (1843) 7 Hare 367n; 68 ER 151 .… 22.15, 22.18, 22.50, 31.1, 33.30 Holohan v Friends Provident and Century Life Office [1966] IR 1 .… 20.20, 20.31 Holroyd v Marshall (1862) 10 HL Cas 191; 11 ER 999; [1861–73] All ER Rep 414 .… 5.32, 6.19, 6.21, 6.23, 8.12

Holt v Dewell (1845) 4 Hare 446; 67 ER 723 .… 26.13, 26.14 Holt v Heatherfield Trust Ltd [1942] 2 KB 1; [1942] 1 All ER 404 .… 6.7, 6.9, 6.11 Home Building & Savings Assn v Pringle (1914) 14 DLR 482; 5 OWN 226 . … 33.3 Honeywood v Honeywood [1902] 1 Ch 347 .… 39.62 Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp v Kloeckner & Co AG [1990] 2 QB 514 .… 6.8 Hongkong Bank of Canada v National Bank of Canada (1990) 1 PPSAC (2d) 73; 72 DLR (4th) 372 .… 5.38 Hood v Easton (1856) 2 Giff 692; 66 ER 290 .… 39.28, 39.33 Hood v Easton (1856) 2 Jur NS 917 .… 33.15, 39.28 Hood v Phillips (1841) 3 Beav 513; 49 ER 202 .… 36.6 Hoogerdyk v Condon (1990) 22 NSWLR 171 .… 1.23 Hooker Town Developments Pty Ltd v Director of War Service Homes (1973) 47 ALJR 320 .… 13.42 Hooks, Re 40 BR 715 (1984) .… 5.87 Hoole v Roberts (1848) 12 Jur 108 .… 40.25 Hoole v Smith (1881) 17 Ch D 434 .… 20.13, 21.13 Hooper, Ex parte (1815) 19 Ves 477; 34 ER 593 .… 3.36, 3.43 Hooper, Re; Ashford v Brooks [1892] WN 151 .… 29.3 Hooper v Cooke (1856) 25 LJ Ch 467 .… 42.8 Hoover Owens Remscher v Gulf Navigation (1923) 54 OLR 483 .… 9.23 Hope v Bathurst City Council (1980) 144 CLR 1 .… 5.25 Hope v Hope [1977] NZLR 582 .… 4.23, 4.25 Hope v Liddell (1855) 20 Beav 438; 52 ER 672 .… 2.44, 24.19 Hope v Winter (1709) 2 Eq Cas Abr 690; 22 ER 580 .… 9.21 Hopgood, Re; Ex parte Coveney (1957) 18 ABC 133 .… 23.14

Hopkins, Re; Williams v Hopkins (1881) 18 Ch D 370 .… 16.9 Hopkins v Hemsworth [1898] 2 Ch 347 .… 26.11 Hopkins v Prescott (1847) 4 CB 578; 136 ER 634 .… 13.48 Hopkinson v Forster (1874) LR 19 Eq 74 .… 6.3, 7.1, 6.13 Hopkinson v Miers (1889) 34 Sol Jo 128 .… 21.21 Hopkinson v Rolt (1861) 9 HL Cas 514; 11 ER 829 .… 4.35, 25.7, 25.8, 25.12, 25.13, 25.14, 25.16, 26.11, 26.12, 31.9 Hordern v Federal Mutual Insurance Co of Aust Ltd (1924) 24 SR (NSW) 267 .… 3.20 Horlock v Smith (1842) 6 Jur 478; 11 LJ Ch 157 .… 19.16, 19.21 Horlock v Smith (1844) 1 Coll 287; 63 ER 422 .… 39.37, 39.40, 40.23 Hornby v Matcham (1848) 16 Sim 325; 60 ER 899 .… 32.82 Horne v Leigh (1906) 7 SR (NSW) 51 .… 18.27 Horn’s Estate, Re, Re; Public Trustee v Garnett [1924] 2 Ch 222 .… 22.51 Hornsey Local Board v Monarch Investment Building Society (1889) 24 QBD 1 .… 16.28, 16.29 Hortico (Australia) Pty Ltd v Energy Equipment Co (Australia) Pty Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 545 .… 7.4 Horsham Properties Group Ltd v Clark [2009] 1 WLR 1255 .… 20.6 Horton v Smith (1858) 4 K & J 624; 70 ER 259 .… 36.5 Horvath v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1999] 1 VR 643 .… 4.11 Hosack v Robbins [1917] 1 Ch 142 .… 7.9 Hosken v Sincock (1865) 11 Jur NS 477 .… 40.9 Hosking, Re; Ex parte Calder (1932) 5 ABC 130 .… 23.15 Hosking v Smith (1888) 13 App Cas 582 .… 34.3 Hough v Edwards (1856) 26 LJ Ch 54 .… 2.37 Household Financial Services Ltd v Island and River Trading Pty Ltd (1993)

6 BPR 13,312 .… 9.15, 9.17, 9.22, 9.24 Houssein v Department of Industrial Relations and Technology (1982) 148 CLR 88 .… 5.42 Houvardas v Zaravinos (2004) 202 ALR 535 .… 13.5, 13.8 Houvardas v Zaravinos [2004] NSWCA 421 .… 13.5, 13.8 How v Vigures (1628) 1 Chan Rep 32; 21 ER 499 .… 1.14, 21.11 Howard v Fanshawe [1895] 2 Ch 581 .… 37.9 Howard v Lud 119 Mich App 55 (1982 .… 5.136 Howard v Harris (1683) 1 Vern 190; 23 ER 406 .… 21.13, 32.11, 32.21 Howard, Re; Ex parte Tennant (1877) 6 Ch D 303 .… 6.22 Howard’s Estate, Re (1892) 29 LR Ir 266 .… 24.12, 36.9 Howe, Re; Ex parte Brett (1871) 6 Ch App 838 .… 23.7, 42.18 Howes v Bishop [1909] 2 KB 390 .… 13.17, 13.20 Hoy v AAA Home Loans Pty Ltd [1985] VR281 .… 24.51 HSBC Bank Canada v. Kupritz (2011) 18 PPSAC (3d) 322 .… 5.137 Hua Chiao Commercial Bank Ltd v Chiaphua Industries Ltd [1987] AC 99; [1987] 1 All ER 1110 .… 19.40 Hubbuck v Helms (1887) 56 LT 232 .… 8.16 Huddersfield Banking Co Ltd v Henry Lister & Son Ltd [1895] 2 Ch 273 .… 42.20 Hudson v Carmichael (1854) Kay 613; 69 ER 260 .… 30.7 Hudson v Granger (1821) 5 B & Ald 27; 106 ER 1103 .… 1.48 Hudson v Malcolm (1862) 10 WR 720 .… 32.80 Hudson v Owners of Swiftsure (1900) 82 LT 389 .… 39.7 Hudston v Viney [1921] 1 Ch 98 .… 24.37, 24.38 Hughes v Birks [1958] EG Digest 341 .… 19.23 Hughes v Britannia Permanent Benefit Building Society [1906] 2 Ch 607 .…

31.9 Hughes v Cook (1865) 34 Beav 407; 55 ER 692 .… 12.2, 33.7 Hughes v Howard (1858) 25 Beav 575; 53 ER 756 .… 3.29 Hughes v Pump House Hotel Co [1902] 2 KB 190 .… 6.5 Hughes v Waite [1957] 1 All ER 603; [1957] 1 WLR 713 .… 12.21, 12.23, 12.24, 19.21 Hughes v Williams (1806) 12 Ves 493; 33 ER 187 .… 19.35, 42.21 Hughes v Williams (1852) 3 Mac & G 683; 42 ER 423 .… 24.49, 30.5, 30.6, 33.26 Hughes v Williams (1853) Kay App iv; 69 ER 313 .… 39.59 Hughes Bros Pty Ltd v Trustee of Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney (SC (NSW), Giles J, 21 September 1989, unreported) .… 3.10, 16.8 Hughes’ Trusts, Re (1864) 2 Hem & M 89; 71 ER 394 .… 26.11 Hugill v Wilkinson (1888) 36 Ch D 480 .… 16.31 Huguenin v Baseley (1807) 14 Ves 273; 33 ER 526 .… 13.22 Hulkes v Day (1840) 10 Sim 41; 59 ER 527 .… 26.23 Hulme v Brigham [1943] 1 KB 152; [1943] 1 All ER 204 .… 1.20, 3.26 Humber Ironworks Co, Re (1868) 16 WR 474 .… 16.1 Humber Ironworks Co (Warrant Finance Co’s Case), Re (1869) 4 Ch App 643 .… 23.10 Humberstone v Northern Timber Mills (1949) 79 CLR 389 .… 5.25 Hume v Munro (No 2) (1943) 67 CLR 461 .… 6.4, 7.2 Humes Ltd v PS (Enterprises) Nominees Pty Ltd (1989) 7 ACLC 944 .… 8.1 Humphreys v Harrison (1820) 1 Jac & W 581; 37 ER 489 .… 42.20 Hungerfords v Walker (1990) 171 CLR 125 .… 39.42 Hunt & Hunt Lawyers v Mitchell Morgan Nominees Pty Ltd (2013) 247 CLR 613; 296 ALR 3 .… 1.55

Hunt v Elmes (1860) 2 De GF & J 578; 45 ER 745 .… 24.37, 24.39, 24.40 Hunt v Fownes (1803) 9 Ves 70; 32 ER 527 .… 40.23 Hunt v Fripp [1898] 1 Ch 675 .… 26.6 Hunt v Hearn (1911) 30 NZLR 501 .… 32.37 Hunt v Luck [1902] 1 Ch 428 .… 24.13, 24.14, 24.21 Hunt v Worsfold [1896] 2 Ch 224 .… 33.9 Hunter v Hunter [1936] AC 222 .… 20.8 Hunter v Lord Langford (1828) 2 Mol 272 .… 1.41, 3.45 Hunter v Macklew (1846) 5 Hare 238; 61 ER 902 .… 33.2 Hunter v Nockolds (1850) 1 Mac & G 640; 41 ER 1413 .… 16.18, 16.23 Huntington v Greenville (1682) 1 Vern 49; 23 ER 303 .… 24.5 Huntington v Huntington (1702) 2 Vern 437; 23 ER 881 .… 30.7 Hurburg v Perpetual Trustee (Tas) Pty Ltd (SC Tas, Slicer J, 6 November 1998, unreported) .… 12.23 Hurley’s Estate, Re [1894] 1 IR 488 .… 1.40 Hurst v Hurst (1852) 16 Beav 372; 51 ER 822 .… 21.21 Husband v Davis (1851) 10 CB 645; 138 ER 256 .… 32.50 Hutchinson v Heyworth (1838) 9 Ad & El 375; 112 ER 1254 .… 6.14 Hutchinson v Johnston (1787) 1 Term Rep 729; 99 ER 1346 .… 24.49 Hutchinson v Joyce (1836) 2 Jo Ex Ir 122 .… 2.41 Hutchinson v Norwood (1886) 54 LT 842 .… 2.43 Hutchinson v Scott (1905) 3 CLR 359 .… 12.20 Huth & Co v Lamport (1886) 16 QBD 735 .… 2.32 Hutton (a bankrupt), Re [1969] 2 Ch 201; [1969] 1 All ER 936 .… 23.3 Hutton v Sealy (1858) 27 LJ Ch 263 .… 21.2 Huxley Catering Ltd, Re (1982) 2 PPSAC 22 .… 5.35

Hyatt Australia Ltd v LTCB Australia Ltd [1996] 1 Qd R 260 .… 18.8 Hyde v Hyde [1948] P 198 .… 7.4 Hyde v Warden (1877) 3 Ex D 72 .… 24.19 Hyde Management Services Pty Ltd v FAI Insurances Ltd (1979) 144 CLR 541 .… 1.15, 3.13, 3.15, 21.1, 32.6 Hypec Electronics Pty Ltd v Registrar-General [2005] NSWSC 1213; 64 NSWLR 679 .… 3.32 I IAC (Finance) Pty Ltd v Courtenay (1963) 110 CLR 550 .… 28.3, 28.4, 28.7, 28.8, 28.12, 28.14, 28.16 Ibrahim v Barclays Bank plc [2012] EWCA Civ 640; [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 13 .… 42.18 Ideal Bedding Co Ltd v Holland [1907] 2 Ch 157 .… 7.11, 13.6 Illingworth v Houldsworth [1904] AC 355 .… 8.13 Imperial Bank of Canada v G M Annable Co [1925] 1 DLR 946 .… 1.51 Imperial Life Assurance Co of Canada v Efficient Distributors Ltd [1992] 2 AC 85 .… 39.50 Imperial Paper Mills of Canada v Quebec Bank (1913) 83 LJ PC 67 .… 8.2 In Regal Financial Co Ltd v Texstar Motors 355 SW 3d 595 (2010) .… 5.121 Inche Noriah v Shaik Allie Bin Omar [1929] AC 127 .… 13.22, 13.23, 13.24 Incorporated Society in Dublin v Richards (1841) 1 Dr & War 258 .… 39.37 Incorporated Trustee of the Australian Clergy Provident Fund v Perpetual Executors and Trustees Association of Australia Ltd [1957] VR 390 .… 20.46, 20.48 Ind, Coope & Co Ltd, Re; Fisher v IndCoope & Co [1911] 2 Ch 233 .… 12.2, 12.4, 12.7, 39.18 Independent Automatic Sales Ltd v Knowles and Foster [1962] 1 WLR 974; [1962] 3 All ER 27 .… 6.20, 11.41

Independent Order of Oddfellows of Victoria Friendly Society v Telford (1991) V ConvR 54-419 .… 12.13, 12.18, 19.4 Indianapolis Morris Plan Corporation v Karlen 28 NY 2d 30 (1971) .… 5.136 Indrisie v General Credits Ltd [1985] VR 251 .… 17.3, 17.9, 19.24, 20.15 Industrial Acceptance Corp Ltd v Tarulli [1974] WAR 125 .… 17.11 Industrial Acceptance Corp Ltd v Tompkins Contracting Ltd (1967) 62 DLR (2d) 693; 60 WWR 546 .… 2.32 Industrial Development Authority v Moran [1978] IR 159 .… 18.10 Industrial Development Bank v Lees (1971) 14 DLR (3d) 612 .… 21.15 Ingham, Re; Jones v Ingham [1893] 1 Ch 352 .… 24.40 Ingham v Sutherland (1890) 63 LT 614 .… 22.29, 22.37 Inglis v Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia (1972) 126 CLR 161 .… 1.51, 3.14, 19.23, 19.24, 20.36, 20.37 Inman v Parsons (1819) 4 Madd 271; 56 ER 706 .… 16.37 Inman v Wearing (1850) 3 De G & Sm 729; 64 ER 680 .… 21.1, 33.10, 33.25 Inns of Court Hotel Co, Re (1868) LR 6 Eq 82 .… 11.8 International Bulk Commodities Ltd, Re [1993] Ch 77; [1993] 1 All ER 361 .… 1.46 International Harvester Credit Corp of Canada v Bell’s Dairy (1986) 6 PPSAC 138; 50 Sask R 177 .… 5.21, 5.24, 5.26, 5.30 International Harvester Export Co v International Harvester Australia Ltd [1983] 1 VR 539 .… 19.31 International Military Services Ltd v Capital and Counties plc [1982] 2 All ER 20 .… 39.43 International Tyre Co Pty Ltd, Re (1979) 4 ACLR 553 .… 2.28 Interstate Investment Co Ltd v Mobbs (1928) 28 SR (NSW) 572 .… 6.5 Interview Ltd, Re [1975] IR 382 .… 6.5

Invercargill Savings Bank v George [1929] NZLR 375 .… 17.10 Investec Bank (Australia) Ltd v Glodale Pty Ltd (2009) 24 VR 617; 256 ALR 104 .… 5.126, 18.13, 20.5, 20.6, 20.22, 20.35 Investment & Merchant Finance Corp Ltd v Kirkwood Estates Ltd (1975) 5 ALR 191 .… 4.28 Ipswich Permanent Money Club Ltd v Arthy [1920] 2 Ch 257 .… 26.15 Irani v St George Bank [2007] VSCA 33 .… 20.5 Irani v St George Bank (No 2) [2005] VSC 403 .… 20.5, 20.6 Irby v Irby (1855) 22 Beav 217; 52 ER 1091 .… 22.45, 25.6 IRC (NZ) v National Bank of New Zealand (1976) 7 ATR 282 .… 41.2 IRC v Electric and Musical Industries Ltd [1949] 1 All ER 120 .… 6.11 IRC v Goldblatt [1972] Ch 498; [1972] 2 All ER 202 .… 8.25 IRC v Oswald [1945] AC 360; [1945] 1 All ER 641 .… 39.51, 41.3 IRC v Parker [1965] Ch 866 .… 1.4 IRC v Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd [1938] SC 816 .… 41.3 Ireland v Hart [1902] 1 Ch 522 .… 6.17 Ireson v Denn (1796) 2 Cox Eq Cas 425 .… 22.11, 31.10 Irish Club Co Ltd, Re [1906] WN 127 .… 8.14 Iron Trades Employers Insurance Association Ltd v Union Land and House Investors Ltd [1937] Ch 313; [1937] 1 All ER 481 .… 12.17, 12.21, 12.24, 12.26 Irvin v Ironmonger (1831) 2 Russ & M 531; 39 ER 496 .… 30.2 Irvine v Carson (1991) 19 IPR 187 .… 37.14 Irving v Commercial Banking Co of Sydney (1897) 19 LR (NSW) Eq 54 .… 20.6 Irving v Commissioner of Titles (WA) [1963] WAR 67 .… 20.16 Isaack v Clark (1615) 2 Bulst 306; 80 ER 1143 .… 1.11 Isherwood v Butler Pollnow Pty Ltd (1986) 6 NSWLR 363 .… 18.2, 18.3,

18.7 Ismail v Richards Butler [1996] QB 711 .… 2.35 Ismoord v Claypool (1666) 9 Sim 317n; 59 ER 380 .… 22.35 Ivie & Associates Inc, Re 84 BR 882 (1988) .… 5.87 J J & H Just (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Bank of NewSouth Wales (1971) 125 CLR 546 .… 4.23, 4.24, 4.27, 24.13, 24.15, 28.8, 28.12, 28.13, 28.14, 28.16 J & S Holdings Pty Ltd v NRMA Insurance Ltd (1981) 39 ACTR 1 .… 32.35, 32.40, 39.2 J B Davies Enterprises Pty Ltd (in liq), Re [1990] 2 Qd R 129 .… 3.4, 6.15, 18.3, 20.6 Jackson, Ex parte; Re Australasian Catholic Assurance Co Ltd (1941) 41 SR (NSW) 285 .… 4.36, 12.11, 19.5 Jackson, Re (1887) 34 Ch D 732 .… 11.31, 11.32 Jackson v Barnett (1903) 23 NZLR 17 .… 7.10 Jackson v Brettall, MR (1795) A 241 .… 22.16 Jackson v Cummins (1839) 5 M & W 342;151 ER 145 .… 2.22 Jackson v Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd (1992) 59 SASR 415 .… 6.20 Jackson v Innes (1819) 1 Bli 104; 4 ER 38 .… 32.31 Jackson v North Eastern Rly Co (1877) 7 Ch D 573 .… 17.4 Jackson v Pierce (1813) 10 Johnson (Ch) 413 .… 11.6 Jackson v Richards [2005] NSWSC 630; (2005) 12 BPR 23,091 .… 2.3, 2.48, 6.12 Jackson & Bassford, Re [1906] 2 Ch 467 .… 2.5 Jacob v Earl of Suffolk (1728) Mos 27; 25 ER 250 .… 39.51 Jacobs v Platt Nominees Pty Ltd [1990] VR 146 .… 24.29, 28.15, 28.16 Jacobs v Richards (1854) 18 Beav 300; 52 ER 118 .… 16.37

Jacobson v National Australia Bank (SC (Vic), 15 April 2003, unreported) . … 20.22 Jacobson v Williams (1919) 48 DLR 51 .… 1.58, 14.2 Jaffe v Premier Motors Pty Ltd [1960] NZLR 146 .… 17.9 Jageev Pty Ltd v Bank of New South Wales (SC (NSW), Sperling J, 26 March 1996, unreported) .… 3.6, 3.7, 3.9, 39.42 Jalmoon Pty Ltd, Re [1986] 2 Qd R 264 .… 2.49 James, Re; Ex parte Harris (1874) LR 19 Eq 253 .… 36.13 James, Re; James v Jones [1911] 2 Ch 348 .… 16.9 James v Abrahams (1981) 51 FLR 16 .… 3.13 James v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1986) 64 ALR 347 .… 13.22 James v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 8 ACSR 444 .… 18.17 James v Ellis [1870] WN 269; 24 LT 12 .… 22.24 James v Harding (1855) 24 LJ Ch 749 .… 40.15 James v James (1873) LR 16 Eq 153 .… 3.45, 21.9 James v Rice (1854) 5 De GM & G 461; 43 ER 949 .… 3.43 James v Rumsey (1879) 11 Ch D 398 .… 32.81, 39.59, 40.12 James Bibbey Ltd v Woods [1949] 2 KB 449 .… 2.49 James Roscoe (Bolton) Ltd v Winder [1915] 1 Ch 62 .… 5.33 James Talcott Inc v Associated Capital Company 491 F 2d 879 (6th Cir 1974) .… 5.87 Jameson v Union Bank of Scotland (1914) 109 LT 850 .… 24.30 Jamieson v English (1820) 2 Mol 337 .… 39.20 Jamieson v Gosigil Pty Ltd [1983] 1 Qd 117 .… 40.2 Jamieson v Johnson (1871) 2 VR (E) 26 .… 33.23 Jankowski v Mastoris (1995) 7 BPR 14,589 .… 2.35, 2.38

Jardine v Hoyt (1871) 2 VR(E) 152 .… 9.24 Jared v Clements [1903] 1 Ch 428 .… 24.35, 24.46 Jared v Walke (1902) 18 TLR 569 .… 32.49 Jay v United Building Society (1991) ANZ ConvR 124 .… 3.15 Jay’s the Jewellers Ltd v IRC [1947] 2 All ER 762 .… 20.48 Je Maintiendrai Pty Ltd v Quaglio (1980) 26 SASR 101 .… 39.58 Jeffcott Holdings Ltd v Paior (1995) 18 ACSR 213; 13 ACLC 1798 .… 2.48 Jefferys v Dickson (1866) 1 Ch App 183 .… 33.7, 33.8 Jeffryes v Reynolds (1882) 52 LJQB 55 .… 7.7 Jenkin v Pharmaceutical Society [1921] 1 Ch 392 .… 11.33 Jenkin v Row (1851) 5 De G & Sm 107; 64 ER 1039 .… 21.24 Jenkins v Jones (1860) 2 Giff 99; 66 ER 43 .… 20.20, 20.36, 20.37 Jenkins v National Australia Bank Ltd [1999] V ConvR 54-602 .… 17.7, 20.22, 20.54 Jenkins v Ridgley (1893) 41 WR 585 .… 22.12, 22.49 Jennings v Credit Corp Australia Pty Ltd (2000) 48 NSWLR 709 .… 6.7 Jennings v Jordan (1881) 6 App Cas 698 .… 22.28, 25.10, 25.11, 31.1, 31.6, 31.9 Jennings v Mather [1902] 1 KB 1 .… 18.15 Jennings v Ward (1705) 2 Vern 520; 23 ER 935 .… 32.11 Jennings Constructions Ltd v Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd (No 2) (1987) 162 CLR 153 .… 7.10 Jensen v Giugni (SC (NSW), Young J, 30 November 1994, unreported) .… 4.7, 4.26, 4.28, 11.24 Jenyns v Public Curator (1953) 90 CLR 113 .… 13.24 Jeogla Pty Ltd v ANZ Banking Group Ltd (1999) 150 FLR 359 .… 18.13 Jesseron Pty Ltd v Middle East Trading Pty Ltd (1994) 13 ACSR 455 .… 8.22

Joachim v M’Douall (1798) 9 Sim 314n; 59 ER 379 .… 22.36 Joachimson v Swiss Bank Corp [1921] 3 KB 110 .… 20.47, 25.15 John Bros Abergarw Brewery Co v Holmes [1900] 1 Ch 188 .… 32.14 John Fox v Bannister King & Rigbeys [1988] QB 925; [1987] 1 All ER 737 . … 32.74 Johncorp Industries Pty Ltd v Sussman (2001) 10 BPR 18,975 .… 3.8 Johns v Cassel (1993) FLC 92-364 .… 2.48, 2.51 Johns v Law Society of NSW [1982] 2 NSWLR 1 .… 2.49 Johns v Ware [1899] 1 Ch 359 .… 1.19 Johnson, Re; Golden v Gillam (1881) 20 Ch D 389; (1882) 51 LJ Ch 503 .… 13.6 Johnson, Re; Shearman v Robinson (1880) 15 Ch D 548 .… 2.18 Johnson v Bourne (1843) 2 Y & CCC 268; 63 ER 118 .… 39.21 Johnson v Buttress (1936) 56 CLR 113; [1936] ALR 390 .… 13.16, 13.20, 13.22, 13.23, 13.24, 13.24 Johnson v Child (1844) 4 Hare 87; 67 ER 572 .… 30.2 Johnson v Curtis (1791) 3 Bro CC 266; 29 ER 528 .… 39.3 Johnson v Diprose [1893] 1 QB 512 .… 19.37, 32.1, 32.3 Johnson v Fesenmeyer (1858) 25 Beav 88; 53 ER 569 .… 16.40, 33.9, 42.4 Johnson v Holdsworth (1850) 1 Sim NS 106; 61 ER 41 .… 22.5, 33.19 Johnston and Halliday v Halliday (1984) ANZConvR 652 .… 13.50 Johnstone v Cox (1881) 19 Ch D 17 .… 26.15 Jolly v Arbuthnot (1859) 4 De G & J 224; 45 ER 87 .… 12.4, 12.5, 12.20, 19.16 Jones, Re (1876) 2 Ch D 70 .… 40.28 Jones, Re; Farrington v Forrester [1893] 2 Ch 461 .… 30.5, 30.6 Jones v Atherton (1816) 7 Taunt 56; 129 ER 23 .… 24.49

Jones v Barnett [1900] 1 Ch 370 .… 24.12 Jones v Creswicke (1839) 9 Sim 304; 59 ER 374 .… 22.35 Jones v Davies (1861) 7 H & N 507; 158 ER 573 .… 36.2 Jones v Davies [1940] WN (Eng) 174 .… 3.36, 22.48 Jones v Farrell (1857) 1 De G & J 208; 44 ER 703 .… 6.14, 6.24 Jones v Foley [1891] 1 QB 730 .… 19.26 Jones v Gibbons (1804) 9 Ves 407; 32 ER 659 .… 14.7, 26.7 Jones v Griffith (1845) 2 Coll 207; 63 ER 702 .… 22.15, 31.4, 33.20 Jones v Harris (1887) 55 LT 884 .… 21.22 Jones v Humphreys [1902] 1 KB 10 .… 6.5 Jones v Jones (1838) 8 Sim 633; 59 ER 251 .… 26.11 Jones v Kendrick (1727) 2 Eq Ca Abr 602; 22 ER 505 .… 22.40 Jones v Lewis (1751) 2 Ves Sen 240 ; 28 ER 155 .… 32.82 Jones v Matthie (1847) 16 LJ Ch 405 .… 20.36, 20.37 Jones v Morgan [2003] Lloyd’s Rep Bank 323 .… 32.14 Jones v Peppercorne (1858) John 430; 70 ER 490 .… 2.33 Jones v Pugh (1842) 1 Ph 96; 41 ER 567 .… 33.11 Jones v Roberts (1827) M’Cle & Yo 567; 148 ER 538 .… 22.34 Jones v Smith (1794) 2 Ves 372; 30 ER 679 .… 31.4 Jones v Smith (1841) 1 Hare 43; 66 ER 943 .… 24.10, 24.14, 24.15, 24.16, 24.20 Jones v Smith (1843) 1 Ph 244; 41 ER 624 .… 24.14, 24.15, 24.19, 24.20 Jones v Tinney (1845) Kay App XLV; 69 ER 336 .… 16.15 Jones v Williams (1857) 24 Beav 47; 53 ER 274 .… 3.42, 24.14, 24.16 Jones v Wyse (1838) 2 Keen 285; 48 ER 638 .… 13.52 Jones’ Estate, Re [1914] 1 IR 188 .… 16.36

Jonesco v Evening Standard Co [1932] 2 KB 340 .… 42.3 Jonmenjoy Coondoo v Watson (1884) 9 App Cas 561 .… 11.7 Jonray (Sydney) Pty Ltd v Partridge Bros Pty Ltd (1969) 89 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 568; [1969] 1 NSWR 621 .… 28.7, 28.8 Jonsson v Arkway Ltd (2003) 58 NSWLR 451 .… 5.10 Jordan, Re (1884) 13 QBD 228 .… 21.23 Joro Pty Ltd v State Bank of NSW (1992) 5 BPR 11709 .… 20.15 Jortin v South Eastern Rly Co (1854) 2 Sm & G 48; 65 ER 296 .… 19.36 Josef v Mulder (1903) 72 LJPC 50 .… 1.9 Joseph v Lyons (1884) 15 QBD 280 .… 24.4 Joseph Constantine Steamship Line Ltd v Imperial Smelting Corp Ltd [1942] AC 154 .… 25.7 Joseph Phillips Ltd, Re [1964] 1 All ER 441 .… 2.52 Joseph Stocks & Co Ltd, Re (1909) [1912] 2 Ch 134n .… 8.2 Josephson v Mason (1912) 12 SR (NSW) 249 .… 28.7 Josselson v Borst [1938] 1 KB 723; [1937] 3 All ER 722 .… 6.7 Joubert v Johnson (1894) 15 LR (NSW) 64 .… 32.38 Jovanovic v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (2004) 87 SASR 570 .… 18.13, 20.21 Jowitt v Callaghan (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 512 .… 35.10 Joyce, Re; Ex parte Warren (1875) 10 Ch App 222 .… 39.18 Joyce v Cam [2004] NSWSC 621; 12 BPR [98092] .… 20.6, 20.7 Judd v Green (1875) 45 LJ Ch 108 .… 14.2 Judson v Etheridge (1833) 1 Cr & M 743; 149 ER 548 .… 2.22 Juggeewundas-Keeka Shah v Ramadas Brijbookundas (1841) 2 Moo Ind App 487; 18 ER 386 .… 18.8 Julian S Hodge & Co Ltd v St Helen’s Credit Ltd [1965] EG Digest 143 .… 12.24, 19.32

Julong Pty Ltd v Fenn [2002] QSC 26 .… 16.8, 17.5, 39.42 Just Juice Corp Ltd, Re; James v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 37 FCR 445; 109 ALR 334 .… 14.2 Justelius v Douglass (1985) Conveyancing Service (NSW) [92263] .… 40.2, 40.3, 40.4 JS Brooksbank and Co (Australasia) Ltd v EXFTX Ltd (in rec and liq) (2009) NZCLC 264, 520; [2009] NZCA 122 .… 5.17, 5.18 K K v K [1976] 2 NZLR 31 .… 13.16 K-Ram Inc, Re (2011) 451 BR 154 .… 5.42 Kaak v Bank of Montreal (2003) 5 PPSAC (3d) 187 .… 5.18 Kali Bakhsh v Ram Gopal Singh (1913) 30 TLR 138 .… 13.24 Kama v Wong (No 1) [2005] NSWSC 427 .… 1.41 Kamouh v Associated Electrical Industries International Ltd [1980] QB 199 . … 16.34 Karak Rubber Co Ltd v Burden (No 2) [1972] 1 WLR 602; [1972] 1 All ER 1210 .… 24.20 Karovnos v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [1992] ACL [295 SA 1] .… 16.17, 17.1 Kater v Kater (No 1) [1963] NSWR 1667 .… 20.11 Katsaitis v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1987) 5 BPR 12,049 .… 3.49, 4.20, 11.3, 13.44 Katsaounis v Belehris (1995) ANZ ConvR 114 .… 32.52, 40.2 Katsikalis v Deutsche Bank (Asia) AG [1988] 2 Qd R 641 .… 3.14, 17.2 Kay, Re [1969] SASR 1 .… 4.40, 16.23 Kay’s Leasing Corp Pty Ltd v CSR Provident Fund Nominees Pty Ltd [1962] VR 429 .… 1.20, 3.26, 20.6 Keane v Robarts (1819) 4 Madd 332; 56 ER 728 .… 11.18

Kearney v Cullen [1955] IR 18 .… 42.9 Keatinge v Keatinge (1843) 6 I Eq R 43 .… 22.45 Kebell v Philpot (1838) 7 LJ Ch 237 .… 3.43 Keech v Hall (1778) 1 Doug KB 21; 99 ER 17 .… 12.9, 12.17, 12.19 Keenan Bros Ltd, Re [1986] BCLC 242 .… 8.14 Keene v Biscoe (1878) 8 Ch D 201 .… 3.16, 16.6 Keene v Thomas [1905] 1 KB 136 .… 2.22, 2.40 Keiner v Keiner [1952] 1 All ER 643 .… 1.43 Keith v Burrows (1877) 2 App Cas 636 .… 9.15, 9.25 Keith v Butcher (1884) 25 Ch D 750 .… 22.6 Keith v Day (1888) 39 Ch D 452 .… 22.12, 22.49 Keith v R Gancia & Co Ltd [1904] 1 Ch 774 .… 12.19 Keith Murphy Pty Ltd v Custom Credit Corp Ltd (1992) 6 WAR 332 .… 11.24 Kekewich v Manning (1851) 1 De GM & G176;42 ER 519 .… 1.37 Kelcey, Re [1899] 2 Ch 530 .… 1.34 Kelday, Re; Ex parte Meston (1888) 36 WR 585 .… 21.24 Kelles-Sharpe v PSAL Ltd [2012] QCA 371 .… 39.55 Kelly v Calhoun (1877) 95 US 710 .… 4.19 Kelly v Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co (1935) 11 F Supp 497 .… 2.5 Kelly v Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia Ltd [1991] ACL Rep 295 Qld 1 .… 20.36 Kelly v Fuller (1867) 1 SALR 15 .… 16.17, 17.1 Kelly v Selwyn [1905] 2 Ch 117 .… 26.9 Kelso v McCulloch [1994] ACL Rep 185 NSW 31 .… 2.48, 2.49, 23.9 Kemmis v Stepney (1828) 2 Mol 85 .… 35.5 Kemp v Hornsby (1982) 43 ALR 410 .… 37.5

Kemp v Wright [1895] 1 Ch 121 .… 32.34 Kempson v Ashbee (1874) LR 10 Ch App 15 .… 13.3 Kendall, Ex parte (1911) 17 Ves 514 .… 30.11 Kendle v Melsom (1998) 193 CLR 46 .… 18.2, 18.6, 18.9, 18.14 Kendrick v Headwaters Production Credit Association (1987) 362 Pa Super 1 .… 5.43 Kennard v Futvoye (1860) 2 Giff 81; 66 ER 35 .… 1.7, 21.11 Kennedy v De Trafford [1897] AC 180; [1896] 1 Ch 762 .… 20.6, 20.21, 20.40, 39.19 Kennedy v General Credits Ltd (1982) 2 BPR 9456 .… 19.37, 20.37, 39.2 Kennedy v Green (1834) 3 My & K 699; 40 ER 266 .… 24.15, 24.23, 42.5 Kennedy and Cheesman, Re [1923] GLR 577 .… 16.7 Kensington, Ex parte (1813) 2 Ves & B 79; 35 ER 249 .… 3.40, 3.43 Kent v Thomas (1856) 1 H & N 473; 156 ER 1287 .… 32.49 Kent and Sussex Sawmills Ltd, Re [1947] Ch 177; [1946] 2 All ER 638 .… 1.28, 6.5, 6.13 Ker v Ker (1869) 4 IR Eq 15 .… 30.4, 30.6 Kerabee Park Pty Ltd v Daley [1978] 2 NSWLR 222 .… 4.26, 20.45, 20.49 Kerford v Mondel (1859) 28 LJ Ex 303 .… 32.42 Kerr v Ducey [1994] 1 NZLR 577 .… 3.14 Kerr v WA Trustee Executor and Agency Co Ltd (1937) 39 WALR 34 .… 13.22 Kerrick v Saffery (1835) 7 Sim 317; 58 ER 859 .… 22.9 Kerr’s Policy, Re (1869) LR 8 Eq 331 .… 21.3, 39.42, 39.57 Kerry Lowe Management Pty Ltd v Isherwood & Sherlock (1989) 15 ACLR 615 .… 28.2 Kershaw, Re [2005] NSWSC 313 .… 23.10 Kershaw v Kirkpatrick (1878) 3 App Cas 345 .… 32.53

Kettlewell v Watson (1882) 21 Ch D 685 .… 24.38, 24.44, 42.5 Kettlewell v Watson (1884) 26 Ch D 501 .… 24.7, 24.46 Key Book Service, Inc, Re 103 BR 39 (1989) .… 5.23 Keys v Williams (1838) Y & C Ex 551; 160 ER 612 .… 3.40 Khalid v Perpetual Ltd [2012] NSWCA 153; 16 BPR 31,225 .… 4.37 Kibble v Fairthorne [1895] 1 Ch 219 .… 16.31, 16.35 Kidd, Re; Brooman v Withall [1894] 3 Ch 558 .… 29.2 Kidderminster Mutual Benefit Building Society v Haddock [1936] WN 158 . … 16.5 Kilmurry v Geery (1713) 2 Salk 538; 91 ER 456 .… 39.42 Kilners Ltd v The John Dawson Investment Trus Ltd (1935) 35 SR (NSW) 274 .… 2.27 Kinahan’s Trusts, Re [1907] 1 IR 321 .… 26.15 Kinane v Mackie-Conteh [2004] 19 EG 164 .… 2.3, 2.7 Kinderley v Jervis (1856) 22 Beav 1; 52 ER 1007 .… 24.50 King, Ex parte (1810) 17 Ves 115; 34 ER 45 .… 2.17 King, Re; Ex parte Furber (1881) 17 Ch D 191 .… 39.42, 39.43 King v AGC (Advances) Ltd [1983] 1 VR 682 .… 1.23, 3.29, 28.16 King v Bird [1909] 1 KB 837 .… 12.23, 12.24, 12.28 King v Bromley (1709) 2 Eq Cas Abr 595; 22 ER 500 .… 1.30 King v Hough [1895] WN 60 .… 22.47 King v King (1735) 3 P Wms 358; 24 ER 1100 .… 17.1 King v Leach (1842) 2 Hare 57; 67 ER 24 .… 22.25 King v Marshall (1864) 33 Beav 565; 55 ER 488 .… 8.12 King v Midland Railway Co (1868) 17 WR 113 .… 1.23 King v Smith (1843) 2 Hare 239; 67 ER 99 .… 12.4, 16.9, 42.20

King v Smith (1848) 6 Hare 473; 67 ER 1251 .… 40.28 King Investment Solutions Pty Ltd v Hussain (2005) 64 NSWLR 441; [2005] NSWSC 1076 .… 10.8, 20.6, 20.8, 21.11 King (J) Ltd v Hay Currie (1911) 28 TLR 10 .… 13.11 King (Township) v Rolex Equipment Co (1992) 23 RPR (2d) (Can) 313 .… 7.3 King Robb Ltd (in liq); Sleepyhead Manufacturing Co Ltd, Re v Dunphy (2006) 9 NZCLC 264,000 .… 5.112 Kingdrake Pty Ltd v Tarkington Pty Ltd [1998] VSC 65 .… 39.50, 40.23 Kingscroft Insurance Co Ltd v H S Weavers (Underwriting) Agencies Ltd [1992] TLR 415 .… 1.48 Kingsford v Poile (1859) 8 WR 110 .… 22.31 Kingsford v Swinford (1859) 4 Drew 705; 62 ER 270 .… 16.12 Kingsnorth Trust Ltd v Bell [1986] 1 All ER 423; [1986] 1 WLR 119 .… 13.18, 13.25 Kingsnorth Trust Ltd v Tizard [1986] 1 WLR 119; [1986] 2 All ER 54 .… 24.1, 24.13, 24.14, 24.21 Kingston v Cowbridge Rly Co (1871) 41 LJ Ch 152 .… 39.29 Kingsway Group Ltd v Belramoul (2009) 14 BPR 27,075 .… 20.21 Kinjella Pty Ltd v Jay (1996) 18 ATPR 41-514 .… 18.10 Kinnaird v Trollope (1888) 39 Ch D 636 .… 17.5, 21.5, 21.13, 22.38, 32.16, 32.41, 32.55, 40.9, 40.10, 40.11 Kinnaird v Webster (1878) 10 Ch D 139 .… 32.54 Kinnaird v Yorke (1889) 60 LT 380 .… 22.46 Kinnoul (Earl of) v Money (1767) 3 Swan 202n; 36 ER 830 .… 21.13 Kirby v Cowderoy [1912] AC 599 .… 19.21, 32.86 Kirby (Inspector of Taxes) v Thorn EMI plc [1988] WLR 445 .… 5.9 Kirk v Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 19 FCR 530 .… 2.49

Kirkham v Smith (1749) 1 Ves Sen 258; 27 ER 1018 .… 30.4, 40.11 Kirkwall v Flight (1855) 3 WR 529 .… 16.40 Kirkwood v Gadd [1910] AC 422 .… 6.20 Kirkwood v Thompson (1865) 2 Hem & M 392; 71 ER 515 .… 20.40 Kison v Papasian (1994) 61 SASR 567 .… 2.48 Kitchen’s Trustee v Madders [1949] Ch 588; [1949] 2 All ER 54 .… 12.19 Kitchen’s Trustee v Madders [1950] Ch 134; [1949] 2 All ER 1079 .… 12.19, 19.30 Kitchin, Re; Ex parte Punnett (1880) 16 Ch D 226 .… 1.23, 3.23, 3.27 Kitson v Goodge (1997) 7 BPR 15,173 .… 32.55, 39.55, 39.60 KL Tractors Ltd, Re [1954] VLR 505 .… 19.24 Knight, In the Will of [1918] VLR 343 .… 29.3 Knight, Re; Ex parte Isherwood (1882) 22 Ch D 384 .… 39.26 Knight v Bampfield (1683) 1 Vern 179; 23 ER 399 .… 39.3 Knight v Bowyer (1858) 2 De G & J 421; 44 ER 1053 .… 33.8 Knight v Independent Mortgage Management Services Pty Ltd [1998] V ConvR 54-587 .… 20.15 Knight v Lawrence [1993] BCLC 215 .… 18.5, 30.8 Knight v Marjoribanks (1849) 2 Mac & G10; 42 ER 4 .… 32.18 Knight v New England Credit Union Ltd (1992) 5 BPR 11744 .… 1.58, 3.7 Knight Sugar Co Ltd v The Alberta Railway & Irrigation Co [1938] 1 All ER 266 .… 36.3 Knightsbridge Estates Trust Ltd v Byrne [1938] Ch 741; [1938] 2 All ER 444 .… 32.8 Knightsbridge Estates Trust Ltd v Byrne [1939] Ch 441; [1938] 4 All ER 618 .… 3.13, 3.15, 3.17, 32.8, 32.9, 32.12 Knightsbridge Estates Trust Ltd v Byrne [1940] AC 613; [1940] 2 All ER 401 .… 8.1, 8.2, 32.9

Knott, Ex parte (1806) 11 Ves 609; 32 ER 1225 .… 25.4 Knowles v Chapman (1815) 3 Seton (7th ed, 1888) 1905 .… 39.45 Knowles v Dibbs (1889) 37 WR 378 .… 22.9 Knox v Simmons (1793) 4 Bro CC 433; 29 ER 975 .… 32.43 Koorootang Nominees Pty Ltd v ANZ Banking Group Ltd [1998] 3 VR 16 . … 4.11, 4.15 Koppel v Koppel [1966] 2 All ER 187 .… 5.43 Kortright v Cady ((1860) 21 NY 343; 78 Am Dec 145 .… 34.3 Kowalczuk v Accom Finance Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 343; 77 NSWLR 205; 229 FLR 4, 14 BPR 26,565 .… 13.36 Krambousanos v Jedda Investments Pty Ltd (1996) 142 ALR 604 .… 38.5 Kravchenko v The Rock Building Society (2009) 26 VR 400 .… 20.22, 20.40 Kreglinger (G and C) v New Patagonia Meat and Cold Storage Co Ltd [1914] AC 25 .… 1.14, 1.25, 32.12, 32.14, 32.15 Kreick v Wansbrough (1973) 35 DLR (3d) 275 .… 1.27 Krey v National Australia Bank Ltd (1992) NSW ConvR 55-653 .… 20.15 Kulchyski v Shuswap Ventures Corp (1994) 7 PPSAC (2d) 216 .… 5.94 Kumar, Re [1993] 1 WLR 224; 2 All ER 700 .… 13.4 Kumar v Dunning [1987] 2 All ER 801 .… 19.40 KWA v Bank of Western Australia [2003] WASCA 227 .… 11.13 L L K Bros Pty Ltd v Collins [2004] QSC 26 .… 11.34 Laborers Pension Trust Fund-Detroit and Vicinity v Interior Exterior Specialists Co (2011) 824 F Supp (2d) 764 .… 5.43 Lacey v Ingle (1847) 2 Ph 413; 41 ER 1002 .… 24.18, 25.4 Lacon v Allen (1856) 3 Drew 579; 61 ER 1024 .… 3.38

Lacon v Liffen (1862) 4 Giff 75; 66 ER 626 .… 9.17 Lacon v Liffen (1863) 32 LJ Ch 315 .… 9.17 Lacon v Mertins (1743) 3 Atk 1; 26 ER 803 .… 19.39 Lacon v Tyrrell (1887) 56 LT 483 .… 39.41 Ladup Ltd v Williams and Glyns Bank plc [1985] 2 All ER 577; [1985] 1 WLR 851 .… 2.7, 37.10 Lai v Gong (1997) 8 BPR 15,837 .… 39.42, 39.43 Laird, Re; Ex parte M’Gregor (1851) 4 DeG & Sm 603; 64 ER 976 .… 22.44 Lake, Re; Ex parte Cavendish [1903] 1 KB 151 .… 6.15, 26.3 Lake v Brutton (1856) 8 De GM & G 440; 44 ER 460 .… 42.13 Lake Apartments Ltd v Bootwala (1973) 37 DLR (3d) 523 .… 20.21 Lakeglen Construction Ltd, Re [1980] IR 347 .… 8.14 Lakshmijit v Sherani [1974] AC 605 .… 17.8 Lambert’s Estate, Re (1884) 13 LR Ir 234 .… 24.42 Laminated Veneers Co, Inc, Re (1973) 471 F 2d 1124 .… 5.38 Lamont v Bank of New Zealand [1981] 2 NZLR 142 .… 23.17 Lamotte v Lamotte (1942) 42 SR (NSW) 99 .… 13.22 Lampet’s Case (1612) 10 Co Rep 46b; 77 ER 994 .… 6.3, 7.1 Lamshed v Lamshed (1963) 109 CLR 440 .… 28.16 Lamshed v Plakakis (1988) 47 SASR 316 .… 16.8, 18.2, 19.2, 19.8, 20.15, 21.5 Lamson Store Service Co Ltd v Russell Wilkins & Sons Ltd (1906) 4 CLR 672 .… 3.15 Lancashire and Yorkshire Reversionary Interest Co Ltd v Crowe (1970) 114 Sol Jo 435 .… 22.14, 22.36 Lancashire Loans Ltd v Black [1934] 1 KB 380; [1933] All ER Rep 201 .… 13.2, 13.18, 13.20, 13.22, 13.24 Lancaster v Evors (1846) 10 Beav 154; 50 ER 541 .… 30.7

Land Credit Co of Ireland, Re; Weikersheim’s Case (1873) 8 Ch App 831 . … 11.29 Landall Holdings Ltd v Caratti [1979] WAR 97 .… 8.10, 8.11 Landers v Schmidt [1983] 1 Qd R 188 .… 1.9 Landowners West of England and South Wales Land Drainage and Inclosure Co v Ashford (1880) 16 Ch D 411 .… 2.9, 2.16, 3.27, 11.9, 19.39, 24.33 Lane v Horlock (1853) 1 Drew 587; 61 ER 576 .… 24.32 Langdon v Reuss (1883) 4 LR (NSW) Eq 21 .… 13.11, 13.13 Langen & Wind Ltd v Bell [1972] Ch 685 .… 2.10, 2.12 Langman v Handover (1929) 43 CLR 334 .… 13.2, 33.8 Langstaffe v Fenwick (1805) 10 Ves Jun 405; 32 ER 902 .… 39.3 Langston, Ex parte (1810) 17 Ves 227; 34 ER 88 .… 3.40 Langton v Horton (1842) 1 Hare 549; 66 ER 1149 .… 1.22, 7.8, 24.49, 24.52 Langton v Horton (1842) 5 Beav 9; 49 ER 479 .… 1.29 Langton v Waite (1869) 4 Ch App 402 .… 39.28 Lanoy v Duke of Athol (1742) 2 Atk 444; 26 ER 668 .… 30.9, 30.10, 30.14 Lansen v Olney (1999) 100 FCR 7; 169 ALR 49 .… 36.2 Lant v Crisp (1719) 15 Vin 467; 22 ER 503 .… 22.40 Lapin v Abigail (1930) 44 CLR 166 .… 4.5, 28.7, 28.11, 28.12, 28.14 Lapin v Abigail [1934] AC 491; (1934) 51 CLR 58 .… 4.5 Lapin v Heavener (1929) 29 SR (NSW) 514 .… 28.11 Larios v Gurety (1873) LR 5 PC 346 .… 1.41, 3.45 Latec Investments Ltd v Hotel Terrigal Pty Ltd (in liq) (1965) 113 CLR 265 . … 4.6, 4.15, 20.20, 20.40, 20.42, 24.21, 24.25, 24.28, 28.9, 28.14, 32.4 Lathom v Greenwich Ferry Co (1895) 72 LT 790 .… 40.1 Latimer v Gilbert (1896) 18 ALT 109 .… 33.23 Latouche v Dunsany (1803) 1 Sch & Lef 137 .… 25.2, 25.12

Laurel Motors Inc v Airways Transportation Group of Companies Inc (1996) 284 Ill App 3d 312 .… 5.41 Lavery v R & I Bank of WA Ltd (SC (WA), Full Ct, 7 September 1995) .… 2.9, 2.18 Law Debenture Trust Corp plc v Ural Caspian Oil Corp Ltd [1993] 2 All ER 355 .… 1.48, 19.40 Law Guarantee and Trust Society Ltd v Micham and Cheam Brewery Co Ltd [1906] 2 Ch 98 .… 1.23 Law Guarantee and Trust Society v Russian Bank for Foreign Trade [1905] 1 KB 815 .… 6.3, 9.15, 9.16 Law v Glenn (1867) 2 Ch App 634 .… 39.18 Law Institute of Victoria v Martin (1992) V ConvR 54-449 .… 42.5 Lawder’s Estate, Re (1861) 11 I Ch R 346 .… 30.9 Lawless v Mansfield (1841) 1 Dr & War 557 .… 16.39, 32.9, 39.3, 39.12, 42.3 Lawloan Mortgages Pty Ltd v Young [2009] NSWSC 1180 .… 19.6 Lawnic Pty Ltd v Wilson (SC (Qld), Shepherdson J, 17 December 1997, unreported) .… 40.3 Lawrance, Re; Bowker v Austin [1894] 1 Ch 556 .… 2.39 Lawrence v Galsworthy (1857) 3 Jur NS 1049 .… 30.9 Lawrence v Hayes [1927] 2 KB 111 .… 6.8 Lawrenson Light Metal Die Casting Pty Ltd, Re; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Lawrenson Light Metal Die Casting Pty Ltd (1999) 33 ACSR 288 .… 18.15 Lawson Constructions Pty Ltd, Re [1942] SASR 201 .… 6.21 Lawson v Dickenson (1724) 8 Mod 306; 88 ER 218 .… 2.35, 2.41 Layard v Maud (1867) LR 4 Eq 397 .… 24.45 Le Bas v Grant (1895) 64 LJ Ch 368 .… 22.12, 22.49 Le Gros v Cockerell (1832) 5 Sim 384; 58 ER 380 .… 22.38

Le Neve v Le Neve (1747) Amb 436; 27 ER 291 .… 27.13 Le Neve v Le Neve (1748) 3 Atk 646; 26 ER 1172 .… 24.23, 25.14 Leadbitter, Re (1878) 10 Ch D 388 .… 22.9 Leahy’s Estate, Re [1975] 1 NSWLR 246 .… 13.50 Leamey v Heath [2001] NSWSC 1095 (Campbell J) .… 2.48 Leary v City of Geelong West [1914] VLR 370 .… 19.39 Leathes, Re; Ex parte Leathes (1833) 3 Deac & Ch 112 .… 3.37, 3.42 Lechmere v Clamp (No 2) (1861) 30 Beav 218; 54 ER 872 .… 22.48 Lechmere v Clamp (No 3) (1862) 31 Beav 578; 54 ER 1263 .… 22.47, 22.48 Ledbrook v Passman (1888) 57 LJ Ch 855 .… 25.4 Lee v Angus (1866) 15 LT 380 .… 13.40 Lee v Heath (1747) 9 Sim 306n; 59 ER 575 .… 22.29 Lee v Howlett (1856) 2 K & J 531; 69 ER 893 .… 26.11 Lee v Rook (1730) Mos 318; 25 ER 415 .… 30.7 Lee v Wansey [1964] NSWR 1268 .… 21.13, 32.22 Leeds and Hanley Theatre of Varieties v Broadbent [1898] 1 Ch 343 .… 3.16, 16.6 Leeds Building Society v Banfield [2007] EWCA Civ 1369 .… 39.21 Legal Services Board (Vic) v Gillespie-Jones[2012] VSCA 68 .… 5.5 Lee-Parker v Izzet [1971] 1 WLR 1688 .… 2.15 Leeper v Primary Producers’ Bank of Australia Ltd (1935) 50 CLR 250 .… 2.33, 2.35 Lees v Fisher (1882) 22 Ch D 283 .… 22.46, 40.30 Lees v Whiteley (1866) LR 2 Eq 143 .… 32.73 Leete v Wallace (1888) 58 LT 577 .… 40.25 Leeward Holdings Ltd v Douglas [1982] 2 NZLR 532 .… 32.45 Legg v Mathieson (1860) 2 Giff 71; 66 ER 31 .… 3.15, 16.1

Leggott v Barrett (1880) 15 Ch D 306 .… 36.3 Leicester Permanent Building Society v Butt[1943] Ch 308; [1943] 2 All ER 523 .… 18.5 Leicestershire Banking Co v Hawkins (1900) 16 TLR 317 .… 25.5 Leigh v Burnett (1885) 29 Ch D 231 .… 2.16, 3.29 Leigh v IRC [1928] 1 KB 73 .… 41.2 Leigh v Lloyd (1865) 35 Beav 455; 55 ER 972 .… 16.37 Leighton v Parton [1976] 1 NZLR 165 .… 13.42 Leighton’s Conveyance, Re [1937] Ch 149;[1936] 3 All ER 1033 .… 40.23 Leith v Irvine (1833) 1 My & K 277; 39 ER 686 .… 19.41 Leith’s Estate, Re (1866) LR 1 PC 296 .… 2.2 Leivers v Barber, Walker & Co Ltd [1943] 1 KB 385 .… 16.17 Lemon v Austin Friars Investment Trust Ltd [1926] Ch 1 .… 8.1, 8.2 Leonino v Leonino (1879) 10 Ch D 460 .… 29.3, 30.2 Lep Air Services Ltd v Rollsowin Investments Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 934 .… 35.8 Leros Pty Ltd v Terara Pty Ltd (1992) 174 CLR 407; 106 ALR 595; 66 ALJR 399 .… 4.13 Leslie, Re (1883) 23 Ch D 552 .… 2.16 Leslie Homes (Aust) Pty Ltd, Re (1984) 8 ACLR 1020 .… 18.5 Lesser v Shire of Wannon (1897) 23 VLR 446 .… 6.20 Lever Finance Ltd v Needleman’s Property Trustee [1956] Ch 375; [1956] 2 All ER 378 .… 12.26, 18.5, 18.8 Levey, Re (1894) 15 NSWLR (B&P) 30 .… 13.32 Levy v Abercorris Slate and Slab Co (1887) 37 Ch D 260 .… 8.1 Lewenberg v Direct Acceptance Corp Ltd [1981] VR 344 .… 4.26, 20.49 Lewer, Re; Ex parte Wilkes (1876) 4 Ch D 101 .… 26.21

Lewes v Morgan (1817) 3 Y & J 230; 148 ER 1164 .… 39.12 Lewes v Morgan (1817) 5 Price 42; 146 ER 530 .… 16.39, 39.3 Lewes, Re (1849) 1 Mac & G 23; 41 ER 1170 .… 40.28 Lewin v Wilson (1880) 11 App Cas 639 .… 16.33 Lewis v Aberdare and Plymouth Co (1884) 53 LJ Ch 741 .… 22.26, 22.28 Lewis v Frank Love Ltd [1961] 1 All ER 446 .… 1.29 Lewis v Frank Love Ltd [1961] 1 All ER 446 .… 32.11, 32.18 Lewis v Keene (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 493 .… 4.2, 4.34, 36.17 Lewis v Levy (1876) 2 VLR (E) 110 .… 39.58 Lewis v Lord Zouche (1828) 2 Sim 388; 57 ER 834 .… 22.5 Lewis v Nangle (1752) 1 Amb 150; 27 ER 97 .… 30.7 Lewis v Plunket [1937] Ch 306; [1937] 1 All ER 530 .… 16.35 Lewis v Ramsdale (1886) 55 LT 179 .… 2.49, 11.7 Lewis Broadcasting Corporation v Phoenix Broadcasting Partners 232 Ga App 94 (1998) .… 5.136 Ley v Barlow (1848) 1 Ex 800; 154 ER 340 .… 2.44 Ley v Scarff (1981) 146 CLR 56 .… 32.56 Leyland DAF Ltd, Re p1994] 1 BCLC 264 .… 18.5 Lidco Investments Ltd v Hale (1971) 219 EG Digest 669 .… 19.23, 32.77 Liddell v Norton (1853) Kay, xi; 69 ER 317 .… 2.45 Liebowitz v Vioiella 107 F 2d 914 (1939) .… 5.23 Life Interest and Reversionary Securities Corp v Hand-in-Hand Fire and Life Insurance Society [1898] 2 Ch 230 .… 20.6 Lift Capital Partners Pty Ltd v Merrill Lynch International [2009] NSWSC 7; 73 NSWLR 404 .… 32.16 Lightfoot v Keane (1836) 1 M & W 745; 150 ER 634 .… 2.40 Liles v Terry [1895] 2 QB 679 .… 42.2

Lilley v Barnsley (1844) 1 Car & K 344; 174 ER 839 .… 2.49 Lind, Re; Industrial Finance Syndicate Ltd v Lind [1915] 2 Ch 345 .… 6.23 Linden, Ex parte (1841) 1 Mont D & De G428 .… 2.13 Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd [1993] 3 All ER 417; [1993] 3 WLR 408 .… 6.19, 10.4 Linderstam v Barnett (1915) 19 CLR 528 .… 13.24 Lindon, Re; Ex parte Clouter (1843) 7 Jur 135 .… 3.43 Linter Group Ltd v Goldberg (1992) 7 ACSR 580 .… 26.12 Lipkin Gorman (a firm) v Karpnale Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 331 .… 24.20 Lipkin Gorman (a firm) v Karpnale Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 409 .… 20.46, 24.20 Lippard v Ricketts (1872) LR 14 Eq 291 .… 39.42 Lipscomb v Lipscomb (1868) LR 7 Eq 501 .… 29.2, 29.3, 30.2 Liquidation Estates Purchase Co v Willoughby [1896] 1 Ch 726 .… 36.7, 36.10 Lister v Tidd (1867) LR 4 Eq 462 .… 26.25 Lister v Turner (1846) 5 Hare 281; 67 ER 919 .… 13.9, 21.11, 22.25 Litherland, Re; Ex parte Howden (1842) 2 Mont D & de G 574 .… 11.26 Liu v Adamson [2003] NSWSC 74 .… 13.29 Liverpool Borough Bank v Eccles (1859) 4 H & N 139; 157 ER .… 3.45 Liverpool Marine Credit Co v Wilson (1872) 7 Ch App 507 .… 9.25, 30.12 Livesey v Harding (1856) 23 Beav 141; 53 ER 55 .… 26.17, 26.26 Llewellin, Re [1891] 3 Ch 145 .… 2.33, 2.40, 2.53 Lloyd v Attwood (1859) 3 De G & J 614; 44 ER 1405 .… 3.40, 25.4 Lloyd v Banks (1868) LR 3 Ch App 488 .… 26.1, 26.18 Lloyd v Johnes (1804) 9 Ves 37; 32 ER 514 .… 30.4 Lloyd v Jones (1842) 12 Sim 491; 59 ER 1221 .… 39.40

Lloyd v Jones (1879) 40 LT 514 .… 2.51 Lloyd v Lander (1821) 5 Madd 282; 56 ER 903 .… 22.9 Lloyd v Mason (1845) 4 Hare 132; 67 ER 590 .… 36.13 Lloyd v Vickery (1871) 12 SCR (NSW) (Eq) 4 .… 20.38 Lloyd v Wait (1842) 1 Ph 61; 41 ER 554 .… 33.2 Lloyd v Whittey (1853) 17 Jur 754; 22 LJ Ch 1038 .… 22.25, 22.42 Lloyd, Re [1903] 1 Ch 385 .… 2.7, 2.8, 20.46 Lloyd, Re [1911] 1 IR 153 .… 16.34 Lloyds and Scottish Finance Ltd v Cyril Lord Carpet Sales Ltd (1979) 129 NLJ 366 .… 6.5, 7.3 Lloyds and Scottish Trust Ltd v Britten (1982) 44 P & CR 249 .… 16.7, 22.38 Lloyds Bank Ltd, Re [1931] 1 Ch 289 .… 13.22, 13.25 Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bullock [1896] 2 Ch 192 .… 24.30, 24.46 Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy [1975] QB 326 .… 13.16, 13.22, 13.23 Lloyds Bank Ltd v Colston (1912) 106 LT 420 .… 21.15, 21.21, 22.42 Lloyds Bank Ltd v Marcan [1973] 1 WLR 339; [1973] 2 All ER 359 .… 13.6 Lloyds Bank Ltd v Marcan [1973] 1 WLR 1387; [1973] 3 All ER 754 .… 12.23, 13.6, 42.5 Lloyds Bank Ltd v Margolis [1954] 1 All ER 734 .… 16.31 Lloyds Bank NZA Ltd v National Safety Council of Australia Victorian Division (1993) 115 ALR 93; 10 ACSR 572 .… 1.53, 4.25, 10.12 Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107; [1990] 1 All ER 1111 .… 24.1, 24.13 Lloyds Bank plc v Waterhouse (1991) 10 Trin LR 161 .… 13.41 Lloyds Bank v Pearson [1901] 1 Ch 865 .… 26.3, 26.11, 26.18 Lloyds Bank v Swiss Bankverein (1913) 108 LT 143 .… 6.8 Lloyds Banking Co v Jones (1885) 29 Ch D 221 .… 24.15, 24.20

Loan Investment Corp of Australasia Ltd v Bonner [1970] NZLR 724 .… 1.41 Lock v Lomas (1851) 15 Jur 162 .… 33.27 Lockett v Cary (1864) 10 Jur (NS) 144 .… 2.44 Lockhart v Hardy (1846) 9 Beav 349; 50 ER 378 .… 16.7, 16.11, 21.5, 22.38 Locking v Parker (1872) 8 Ch App 30 .… 36.16 Loc-tex International Pty Ltd v Bolfox Pty Ltd (1990) 8 ACLC 1146 .… 6.19 Lodge v Lyseley (1832) 4 Sim 70; 58 ER 27 .… 24.49 Lodge v National Union Investment Co Ltd [1907] 1 Ch 300 .… 33.8 Loftus v Swift (1806) 2 Sch & Lef 642 .… 19.35, 40.11 Lomarto v Bank of America 99 Cal Repr 442 (1972) .… 3.8 Lomax v Bird (1683) 1 Vern 182; 23 ER 402 .… 33.2 Lomax v Hide (1690) 2 Vern 185; 23 ER 721 .… 22.6 Lomax v Peter Dixon & Sons Ltd [1943] KB 671 .… 41.3 Lombard (Aust) Ltd v Wells Park Motors Pty Ltd [1960] VR 693 .… 2.27 Lombard North Central plc v Stobart [1990]TLR 171 .… 17.9, 32.40 London v Manby (1879) 13 Ch D 239 .… 33.11 London and Canadian Loan and Agency Co Ltd v Duggan [1893] AC 506 . … 24.18 London and Cheshire Insurance Co Ltd v Laplagrene Property Co Ltd [1971] Ch 499 .… 2.10 London and County (A & D) Ltd v Wilfred Sportsman Ltd [1971] Ch 764 . … 3.29, 37.8 London and County Banking Co v Goddard [1897] 1 Ch 642 .… 1.40, 3.3 London and County Banking Co v Ratcliffe (1881) 6 App Cas 722 .… 25.7 London and County United Building Society v Angell (1896) 65 LJ QB 194 . … 32.65

London and Globe Finance Corp Ltd v Montgomery (1902) 18 TLR 661 .… 32.11 London and Midland Bank Ltd v Mitchell [1899] 2 Ch 161 .… 16.28, 21.3 London and South of England Building Society v Stone [1983] 1 WLR 1242; [1983] 3 All ER 105 .… 37.3 London Chartered Bank v Davison (1897) 13 WN (NSW) 134 .… 33.23 London Chartered Bank of Australia v Hayes (1871) 2 VR (Eq) 104 .… 4.1, 4.24 London, Chatham and Dover Rly Co v South Eastern Rly Co [1893] AC 429 .… 39.43 London County and Westminster Bank Ltd v Tompkins [1918] 1 KB 515 .… 1.8, 21.18 London Joint Stock Bank v Simmons [1892] AC 201 .… 6.8, 6.17, 24.30, 26.8 London Monetary Advance Co v Bean (1868) 18 LT 349 .… 22.47 London Permanent Benefit Building Society v De Baer [1969] 1 Ch 321; [1968] 1 All ER 372 .… 19.12 London, Windsor and Greenwich Hotels Co, Re; Quartermaine’s Case [1892] 1 Ch 639 .… 23.10 Long, Re; Ex parte Fuller (1881) 16 Ch D 617 .… 2.36 Long v Bowring (1864) 33 Beav 585; 55 ER 496 .… 33.14 Long v Storie (1854) 23 LJ Ch 200 .… 22.27 Long v Town (1889) 10 LR (NSW) Eq 253 .… 22.52 Long Leys Co Pty Ltd v Silkdale Pty Ltd (1991) 5 BPR 11512 .… 4.13, 14.5, 17.7, 19.2, 20.9 Longbotham & Sons, Re [1904] 2 Ch 152 .… 40.31 Longbottom v Berry (1869) LR 5 QB 123 .… 1.20, 3.26 Loosemore, Re; Ex parte Berridge (1843) 3 Mont D & De G 464 .… 31.1, 31.6

Loosemore, Re; Ex parte Patch (1843) 12 LJ Bcy 44 .… 26.21 Lord, Ex parte [1985] 2 Qd R 198 .… 4.28 Lord v Colvin (1862) 2 Drew & Sm 82; 62 ER 553 .… 26.23 Lord v Lord (1866) 2 Eq 605 .… 39.6 Lord v Price (1874) LR 9 Ex 54 .… 3.55 Lord v Wormleighton (1822) Jac 580, 37 ER 969 .… 2.34 Lord Advocate v Lord Lovat (1880) 5 App Cas 273 .… 32.86 Lord Advocate v Young (1887) 12 App Cas 544 .… 19.21 Lord Annaly, Re; Crawford v Annaly (1891) 27 LR Ir 534 .… 22.5 Lord Crewe v Edleston (1857) 3 Jur NS 128, 1061; 1 De G & J 93; 44 ER 657 .… 16.1 Lord Kensington v Bouverie (1852) 16 Beav 194; (1859) 7 HL Cas 557; 51 ER 752 .… 22.5, 31.4 Lord Kensington v Bouverie (1854) 19 Beav 39; 32 ER 262 .… 33.8 Lord Kensington v Bouverie (1855) 7 De G M & G 134; 44 ER 53 .… 39.24, 39.25, 39.28 Lord Kensington, Re; Bacon v Ford (1885) 29 Ch D 527 .… 26.17 Lord Marples of Wallasey v Holmes (1975) 31 P & CR 94 .… 22.12 Lord Midleton v Eliot (1847) 15 Sim 531; 60 ER 725 .… 32.80, 32.82, 39.59, 40.12 Lord Milton v Edgworth (1773) 5 Bro Parl Cas 313; 2 ER 700 .… 39.58 Lord St John v Boughton (1838) 9 Sim 219; 59 ER 342 .… 16.34 Lord Strathcona SS Co Ltd v Dominion Coal Co Ltd [1926] AC 108 .… 16.14 Lord Sudeley v AG [1897] AC 11 .… 1.43 Lord Trimleston v Hamill (1810) 1 Ball & B 377 .… 19.35 Lord Waring v London and Manchester Assurance Co [1935] Ch 310 .… 20.20, 20.36, 20.37, 32.55

Losa, Re [1982] Qd R 381 .… 32.39, 32.50 Louth v Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621 .… 13.16, 13.30 Love v Geelong Building Society [1995] 2 VR 112 .… 11.45 Loveday v Chapman (1875) 32 LT 689 .… 22.27 Lovelock v Margo [1963] 2 QB 786 .… 37.10 Low v Bouverie [1891] 3 Ch 82 .… 26.16 Low Moor Co v Stanley Coal Co Ltd (1876) 34 LT 186 .… 19.21 Lowloan Mortgages Pty Ltd v Hancock [2001] NSWSC 607 .… 9.12 Lowry v Williams [1895] 1 IR 274 .… 36.14 Lowther v Carlton (1740) 2 Atk 139; 26 ER 487 .… 33.16 Lowther v Carlton (1740) Barn Ch 358; 27 ER 678 .… 33.16 Lowther v Carlton (1741) 2 Atk 242; 26 ER 549 .… 24.7 Loyd v Mansell (1722) 2 P Wms 73; 24 ER 645 .… 21.7, 22.39 Lucas v Dennison (1843) 13 Sim 584; 60 ER 227 .… 32.88 Lucas v Lucas [1943] P 68; [1943] 2 All ER 110 .… 13.49 Lucas v Seale (1740) 2 Atk 56; 26 ER 431 .… 21.11 Lucas v Smith [1926] VLR 400 .… 12.21 Lucia Heights Pty Ltd v Comptroller of Stamps [1985] VR 338 .… 3.45 Luckins v Highway Motel (Carnarvon) Pty Ltd (1975) 133 CLR 164 .… 8.11, 8.13 Ludbrook v Ludbrook [1901] 2 KB 96 .… 16.31 Luffman v Luffman (1898) 25 Ont AR 48 .… 9.23 Lukass Investments Pty Ltd v Makaroff (1964) 82 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 226 .… 20.20 Luke v South Kensington Hotel Co (1879) 11 Ch D 121 .… 3.49, 22.4 Lusk v Sebright [1894] WN 134 .… 22.37 Lusty, Re; Ex parte Lusty v Official Receiver (1889) 60 LT 160 .… 1.20

Ly Ty Tran Cao; Ex parte Dixon v Ly Ty Tran Cao (1995) 62 FCR 432 .… 2.37 Lyddon v Moss (1859) 4 De G & J 104; 45 ER 41 .… 42.3 Lynch v O’Keefe [1930] St R Qd 74 .… 28.16 Lynch v Subjic (1988) The Times, 18 May .… 13.49 Lynde v Waithman [1895] 2 QB 180 .… 18.8 Lyon & Co v London City and Midland Bank [1903] 2 KB 135 .… 1.20 Lyons v Imperial Land, Building and Deposit Co Ltd (1894) 15 LR (NSW) Eq 64 .… 27.10 Lyons v Lyons [1967] VR 169 .… 3.39, 4.6, 4.10, 11.4, 37.1, 37.4 Lysaght v Edwards (1876) 2 Ch D 499 .… 2.11, 2.13 Lysaght v Westmacott (1864) 33 Beav 417; 55 ER 429 .… 33.21 Lysnar v National Bank of New Zealand Ltd (No 2) [1936] NZLR 541 .… 12.3, 19.6 Lyus v Prowsa Developments Ltd [1982] 2 All ER 953; [1982] 1 WLR 1044 .… 19.40, 24.1 M M Collins & Son Pty Ltd v Bankstown Municipal Council (1958) 3 LGRA 216 .… 5.4 M G Charley Pty Ltd v F H Wells Pty Ltd [1963] NSWR 22 .… 7.14 M Hoffman Nominees Pty Ltd v Cosmas Fish Processors Pty Ltd (1982) 7 ACLR 65 .… 8.24 M Wheeler & Co Ltd v Warren [1920] Ch 840 .… 18.9 McArdle, Re [1951] Ch 669; [1951] 1 All ER 905 .… 6.11 McArthur v Dudgeon (1872) LR 15 Eq 102 .… 39.6 M’Carogher v Whieldon (1864) 34 Beav 107; 55 ER 574 .… 20.41 M’Carthy v M’Cartie [1904] 1 IR 100 .… 30.5 McCann, Re [1985] 2 Qd R 381 .… 16.7, 23.1, 23.3

McCarthy and Stone Ltd v Julian S Hodge & Co Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 1547; [1971] 2 All ER 973 .… 1.33, 24.1, 24.4, 24.6, 24.9, 24.13, 24.14, 24.25, 24.28, 24.29, 24.45, 25.4, 25.10, 25.11 Macartney v Graham (1828) 2 Russ & M 353; 39 ER 429 .… 32.82 McCaughey v Commissioner of Stamp Duties (1945) 46 SR (NSW) 192 .… 1.43 McCauley, Re (1995) 61 FCR 251 .… 13.5 McColl’s Wholesale Pty Ltd v State Bank of New South Wales [1984] 3 NSWLR 365 .… 39.42 McColl’s Wholesale Pty Ltd v State Bank of New South Wales [1984] 3 NSWLR 365 .… 42.13, 42.17 McCombie v Davies (1805) 7 East 5; 103 ER 3 .… 2.31 McCurdy Supply Co Ltd v Doyle (1956) 20 WWR 125 .… 4.33 MacDiarmid v Burton (1980) 1 NZCPR 238 .… 4.26 McDonald, Re (1972) 28 DLR (3d) 380 .… 31.7 Macdonald v CBFC Ltd [2001] QSC 453 .… 37.10 Macdonald v Eyles [1921] 1 Ch 631 .… 6.25 McDonald v Gardiner [1933] VLR 129 .… 4.30, 14.16, 17.5, 17.10 MacDonald v Green [1951] 1 KB 594 .… 13.47 McDonald v Lloyd (1931) 31 SR (NSW) 415 .… 4.6, 12.3, 12.18 McDonald v Rowe (1872) 3 VLR (E) 143 .… 20.15, 20.16 Macdonald & Cowtin, Re (1972) 28 DLR (3d) 380 .… 32.13, 32.14 McDonald’s Australia Ltd v Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd .… [2013] VSC 639 McDonough v Shewbridge (1814) 2 Ball &B 555 .… 33.7 McDougall, Ex parte [1982] Qd R 553 .… 4.25 Mace Builders (Glasgow) Ltd v Lunn [1987] Ch 191 .… 8.24 MacEwen Agriculture Centre Inc v Beriault (2002) 61 OR (3d) 63 .… 5.36,

5.38 McFadden v Allt (1888) 4 WN (NSW) 174 .… 20.1 Macfarlane v Lister (1887) 37 Ch D 88 .… 2.42 McGinnis v Union Bank of Australia Ltd [1935]VLR 161 .… 20.20, 39.2 McGowan v Gannas [1983] 3 Ir LR (Monthly) 616 .… 20.23 McHenry, Re; McDermot v Boyd (Barker’s Claim) [1894] 3 Ch 290 .… 17.10, 20.46 McHugh v Union Bank of Canada [1913] AC 299 .… 20.21, 40.25 McIntosh v Goulburn City Council (1986) 3 BPR 9367 .… 3.12, 4.29, 4.41 McIntyre v Perkes (1988) 15 NSWLR 417 .… 18.20, 18.27 Mac-Jordan Construction Ltd v BrookmountErostin Ltd [1992] BCLC 350 . … 1.48 Mack v Postle [1894] 2 Ch 449 .… 26.25 Mackay, Ex parte (1873) LR 8 Ch App 643 .… 2.30 Mackay v Douglas (1872) LR 14 Eq 106 .… 13.6 McKean v Maloney [1988] 1 Qd R 268 .… 20.20, 20.22, 20.28, 20.30, 20.35, 20.37, 20.42 McKenzie v Bank of Montreal (1975) 55 DLR (3d) 641 .… 13.22 Mackenzie v Gordon (1839) 6 Cl & Fin 875; 7 ER 927 .… 32.53 Mackenzie v Royal Bank of Canada [1934] AC 468 .… 13.20, 13.25, 13.40 McKeown v Cavalier Yachts Pty Ltd (1988) 13 NSWLR 303 .… 5.94, 5.95, 5.97, 5.98 Mackereth v Wigan Coal and Iron Co Ltd [1916] 2 Ch 293 .… 6.17 Mackey’s case (No 1) [1985] Ch 168 .… 37.11 McKinnon v Portelli (1959) 60 SR (NSW) 343 .… 3.23 MacKinnon v The Regent Trust Company Ltd (6 December 2004, unreported) .… 42.22 Mackintosh v Pogose [1895] 1 Ch 505 .… 13.51

Mackreth v Symmons (1808) 15 Ves 329; 33 ER 778 .… 2.10, 2.13, 2.19 McLaughlin v Daily Telegraph Newspaper Co Ltd (1904) 1 CLR 243 .… 11.20 MacLaine v Gatty [1921] 1 AC 376 .… 1.27, 3.16, 16.6 Maclaine Watson & Co Ltd v International Tin Council [1988] Ch 1; [1989] Ch 253; [1990] 2 AC 418 .… 7.11 McLeish v Palmer (1921) 21 SR (NSW) 382;(1921) 22 SR (NSW) 53 .… 2.33, 2.52 McLellan v Halsey [1955] QWN 61 .… 18.19 Macleod v Buchanan (1864) 4 De GJ & Sm 265;46 ER 921 .… 26.25 McLeod v Drummond (1810) 17 Ves 152; 34 ER 59 .… 11.18 Macleod v Jones (1883) 24 Ch D 289 .… 20.36, 20.37 McMahon, Re; McMahon v McMahon (1886) 55 LT 763 .… 3.43 McMahon v AF Wade Pty Ltd [1983] WAR 152 .… 11.6 McMahon v State Bank of New South Wales(1990) 8 ACLC 315 .… 16.8, 18.6, 18.7 McMaster v Byrne [1952] 1 All ER 1362 .… 42.2 McMeehan v Aitken (1895) 21 VLR 65 .… 18.25 McNaghten v Paterson (1908) 6 CLR 257 .… 20.18 Macnamara, Re (1884) 13 LR Ir 158 .… 24.24 McPhail v Persons Unknown [1973] Ch 447 .… 19.19, 19.20 MacPhee v SWS Fuels Limited (2011) 17 PPSAC (3d) 175 .… 5.43 McPherson v Summerville (1905) 6 SR (NSW) 1 .… 39.43, 39.60 McPhie v Mackay [1975] 2 NSWLR 369 .… 29.2, 29.3 Macquarie Bank Ltd v Sixty-Fourth Throne Pty Ltd [1998] 3 VR 133 .… 4.11, 25.7 Macquarie Health Corp Pty Ltd v FCT (1999) 96 FCR 238; (1999) 43 ATR 650 .… 41.1

M’Queen v Farquhar (1805) 11 Ves 467; 32 ER 1168 .… 24.20 McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commissioner (1951) 84 CLR 377 .… 13.41 Macrea v Evans (1875) 24 WR 55 .… 22.47 Maddison v Alderson (1883) 8 App Cas 467 .… 3.36 Madell v Thomas & Co [1891] 1 QB 230 .… 1.29 Magadi Soda Co Ltd, Re (1925) 41 TLR 297 .… 18.5 Magee v UDC Finance Ltd [1983] NZLR 438 .… 6.14, 14.2, 14.11, 24.22, 42.5 Magnus v Queensland National Bank (1888) 37 Ch D 466 .… 32.55 Maguire v Leigh-on-Sea UDC (1906) 95 LT 319 .… 19.39, 37.5 Maguire v Makaronis (1997) 188 CLR 449 .… 13.2, 42.4 Maher v Network Finance Ltd [1982] 2 NSWLR 503 .… 39.2, 40.1, 40.2, 40.23 Mahlo v Westpac Banking Corp (1998) NSW ConvR 55-844 .… 13.36 Mahoney v McManus (1981) 180 CLR 370 .… 30.2 Maiden Civil (P&E) Pty Ltd, Re [2013] NSWSC 852 .… 5.1, 5.4, 5.5, 5.30 Mailman v Challenge Bank Ltd (1991) 5 BPR 11721 .… 20.22, 20.23 Maine Family Federal Credit Union v Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada 727 A. 2d 335 (1999) .… 5.121 Mainland v Upjohn (1889) 41 Ch D 126 .… 13.14, 22.20, 32.15, 33.22, 39.10, 39.11 Mainwaring, Re; Mainwaring v Verden [1937] Ch 96; [1936] 3 All ER 540 . … 30.4 Maio v Piro [1956] SASR 233 .… 19.14 Maitland v Irving (1846) 15 Sim 437; 60 ER 688 .… 13.2 Major, Re [1914] 1 Ch 278 .… 29.2 Major v Bretherton (1928) 41 CLR 62 .… 36.3

Major v Ward (1847) 5 Hare 598; 67 ER 1049 .… 20.14 Major’s Furniture Mart, Inc v Castle Credit Corp (1979) 602 F 2d 538 .… 5.133 Malcolm v Charlesworth (1836) 1 Keen 63; 48 ER 230 .… 29.11 Malcolm v Scott (1843) 3 Hare 39; 67 ER 288 .… 6.13 Mallicoat v Volunteer Finance & Loan Corp 415 SW 2d 347 (1966) .… 5.121 Mallott v Wilson [1903] 2 Ch 494 .… 30.13 Malone v Geraghty (1843) 3 Dru & War 239; 1 HL Cas 81 .… 16.2 Malpas v Ackland (1827) 3 Russ 273; 38 ER 578 .… 24.18 Mancetter Developments Ltd v Garmanson Ltd [1986] QB 1212; [1986] 1 All ER 449 .… 1.20 Manches v Trimborn (1946) 115 LJKB 305 .… 13.12 Manchester and Liverpool Bank v Parkinson (1889) 68 LT 258 .… 22.12 Manchester and Milford Rly Co, Re; Ex parte Cambrian Rly Co (1880) 14 Ch D645 .… 18.4 Manchester & Oldham Bank v Cook (1883) 49 LT 674 .… 1.41 Manchester Unity Life Insurance Collecting Society Trustees v Sadler [1974] 2 All ER 410; [1974] 1 WLR 770 .… 22.12 Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Co v North Central Wagon Co (1888) 13 App Cas 554 .… 1.27 Mander v Falcke [1891] 2 Ch 554 .… 19.40 Mangan, Re; Ex parte Andrew (1983) 123 ALR 633 .… 3.17, 32.6, 32.7, 32.14, 32.15, 32.51, 32.52, 39.46, 39.50, 39.59, 40.3, 40.25 Mangles v Dixon (1852) 3 HL Cas 702 .… 39.9, 39.20, 39.53 Mango Media Pty Ltd v Mertes (2006) 14 BPR 26, 971 .… 20.6, 21.11 Manks v Whiteley [1911] 2 Ch 448; [1912] 1 Ch 735 .… 36.10 Manlove v Bale and Bruton (1688) 2 Vern 84; 23 ER 664 .… 19.39

Manners v Mew (1885) 29 Ch D 725 .… 24.40 Manning v Burges (1663) 1 Cas in Ch 29; 22 ER 678 .… 32.44 Manser v Dix (1857) 8 De G M & G 703; 44 ER 561 .… 10.10, 20.10 Manson Finance v Oliso-Emosingoit [1975] CLY 273 .… 19.23 Manton v Parabolic Pty Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 361 .… 3.5, 20.5, 20.6, 20.13, 20.14, 20.17, 20.42, 21.4, 21.8, 21.11, 21.15, 21.21, 21.22, 21.23, 22.15 Manurewa Transport Ltd, Re [1971] NZLR 909 .… 8.20 Maralinga Pty Ltd v Major Enterprises Pty Ltd (1973) 128 CLR 336 .… 13.42 Marchant v Morton, Down & Co [1901] 2 KB 829 .… 6.5, 6.8 Marcolongo v Chen [2011] HCA 3; 242 CLR 546; 274 ALR 634 .… 13.6 Marcoly, In Re 32 BR 423 (1983) .… 5.23 Marcon v Bloxam (1856) 11 Exch 586; 156 ER 964 .… 31.4 Mardon v Holloway [1967] NZLR 372 .… 4.28 Margart Pty Ltd, Re (1984) 79 FLR 330;9 ACLR 269 .… 8.11, 8.19, 8.21, 20.51 Marginson v Potter (1976) 136 CLR 161; 11 ALR 64 .… 2.18 Margrave v Le Hooke (1690) 2 Vern 207; 23 ER 734 .… 31.8 Marine Mansions Co, Re (1867) LR 4 Eq 601 .… 8.12 Marks v Lahee (1837) 3 Bing NC 408; 132 ER 467 .… 2.26 Markwick v Hardingham (1880) 15 Ch D 339 .… 32.86, 32.88 Marnham v Weaver (1899) 80 LT 412 .… 14.2 Marquis of Anglesey, Re; De Galve v Gardner[1903] 2 Ch 727 .… 26.4, 26.17, 26.26 Marquis of Bute v Cunynghame (1826) 2 Russ 275; 33 ER 339 .… 30.2 Marriott v Anchor Reversionary Co (1861) 3 De GE & J 177; 45 ER 846 .… 19.34 Marriott Industries Pty Ltd v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1990) 55 SASR 228 .

… 7.10 Marsden v Campbell (1897) 18 LR (NSW) (Eq) 33 .… 27.13 Marsh, Ex parte (1815) 1 Mad 148; 56 ER 56 .… 22.44 Marsh v Bathoe (1744) Ridg Cas temp Hardwicke 256; 27 ER 822 .… 2.40 Marsh v Lee (1670) 2 Ventr 337; 86 ER 473 .… 25.2, 25.11 Marshall v Cave (1824) 3 LJ OS Ch 57 .… 19.34, 19.36 Marshall v Cottingham [1982] Ch 82; [1981] 3 All ER 8 .… 18.4, 18.10, 18.15 Marshall v Crowther (1874) 2 Ch D 199 .… 39.61 Marshall v Director-General, Department of Transport (2001) 205 CLR 603 . … 5.4 Marshall v Miles (1971) 13 DLR (3d) 158 .… 21.4, 22.42 Marshall v Shrewsbury (1875) LR 10 Ch App 250 .… 21.3, 22.12, 33.25 Marshall v South Staffordshire Tramways Co [1895] 2 Ch 36 .… 18.23 Marston v Charles H Griffith & Co Pty Ltd (1982) 3 NSWLR 294 .… 3.49 Martin, Re Goods of (1883) 13 LR Ir 312 .… 2.33 Martin v Diamantikos [1964] VR 593 .… 32.49 Martin v Lewis (1985) ConveyancingService (NSW) [92266]; [1985] ACLD 630 .… 20.22 Martin v Reid (1862) 11 CB (NS) 730; 142 ER 982 .… 1.11 Martin v Sedgwick (1846) 9 Beav 333; 50 ER 372 .… 35.4 Martin v Watson and Egan [1919] 2 IR 534 .… 19.16 Martin Bros Implement Co v Diepholz 440 NE 2d 320 (1982) .… 5.104 Martindale v Booth (1832) 3 B & Ad 498; 110 ER 180 .… 13.6, 13.7 Martinez v Cooper (1826) 2 Russ 198; 38 ER 309 .… 24.43, 33.9 Martin-Smith v Woodhead [1990] WAR 62 .… 11.6 Martinson v Clowes (1882) 21 Ch D 857; (1885) 52 LT 706 .… 20.40

Marwalt, Re [1992] BCC 32 .… 7.3 MAS Food Industries (Aust) Pty Ltd (in liq), Re [2000] WASC 155 .… 2.9, 2.11 Mason, Re (1953) 16 ABC 132 .… 7.10 Mason v Bogg (1837) 2 My & Cr 443; 40 ER 709 .… 30.10 Mason v Mason [1933] P 199 .… 2.49 Mason v Morley (1865) 11 Jur (NS) 459 .… 2.32, 2.37 Mason v Stokes Bay Pier & Rail Co (1862) 32 LJ Ch 110 .… 2.22 Mason and Taylor, Re (1878) 10 Ch D 729 .… 2.42 Mason Logging Co v General Electric Capital Corporation 13 FC DR 2117 . … 5.121 Massey, Re; Re Freehold Land and Brickmaking Co (1870) LR 9 EQ 367 . … 2.48 Massey v Sladden (1868) LR 4 Exch 13 .… 17.9, 20.4 Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353 .… 3.40 Mather v Fraser (1856) 2 K & J 536; 69 ER 895 .… 1.20, 1.21, 1.22, 3.26 Mathew v Blackmore (1857) 1 H & N 762; 156 ER 1409 .… 17.3 Mathew v T M Sutton Ltd [1994] 4 All ER 793 .… 20.48 Mathieson v Mercantile Finance Trustees and Agency Co Ltd (1891) 17 VLR 271 .… 4.29, 4.37, 20.8 Mathieson v Wahlen (1928) 28 SR (NSW) 189 .… 5.79 Mathison v Clark (1855) 25 LJ Ch 29 .… 20.48 Mathison v Clarke (1854) 3 Drew 3; 61 ER 801 .… 19.41 Mathura Daas v Raja Narindar Bahadur Pal (1896) 12 TLR 609 .… 39.43 Matson v Dennis (1864) 4 De G J & Sm 345; 46 ER 952 .… 11.31, 33.18 Matthew Ellis Ltd, Re [1933] Ch 458 .… 8.24 Matthews, Re 724 F 2d 798 (1984) .… 5.85, 5.86

Matthews v Antrobus (1879) 49 LJ Ch 80 .… 32.55 Matthews v Goodday (1861) 31 LJ Ch 282; 8 Jur NS 90 .… 1.37, 3.36, 21.11, 21.18 Matthews v Usher [1900] 2 QB 535 .… 12.2 Matthews v Wallwyn (1798) 4 Ves 118; 31 ER 62 .… 14.2, 39.20, 39.53 Matthews Thomspon & Co v Everson (1934) 34 SR (NSW) 114 .… 35.7 Matton v Lipscomb (1895) 16 LR (NSW) Eq 142 .… 4.7, 22.54, 33.12 Matzner v Clyde Securities Ltd [1975] 2 NSWLR 293 .… 4.35, 10.6, 19.38, 20.43, 24.33, 25.2, 25.3, 25.7, 25.8, 25.12, 25.13, 25.16, 40.19 Maudslay, Sons & Field, Re [1900] 1 Ch 602 .… 1.46 Maughan v Ridley (1863) 8 LT(NS) 309 .… 6.15 Maurer v Arab Petroleum Corp (1940) 131 Am LR 1 .… 30.17 Maxfield v Burton (1873) LR 17 Eq 15 .… 24.39 Maxson, Re; Ex parte Trustee [1919] 2 KB 330 .… 23.6 Maxwell Communications Corp, Re [1993] 1 WLR 1402 .… 10.15 Maxwell v Ashe (1752) 1 Bro CC 444n; 28 ER 1229 .… 3.27 Maxwell v Lady Montacute (1719) Prec Ch 526;24 ER 235 .… 1.25 May v Lane (1894) 64 LJ QB 236 .… 6.12 Mayer v Murray (1878) 8 Ch D 424 .… 19.34, 39.24 Mayfair London Bank Ltd v Workman (1972) 22 EG 989 .… 1.28 Mayfair Property Co, Re; Bartlett v Mayfair Property Co [1898] 2 Ch 28 .… 8.14 Maynard v Moseley (1676) 3 Swanst 651; 36 ER 1009 .… 13.23 MBF Investments Ltd v Nolan [2011] VSCA 114 .… 20.6, 20.22 Meacham v Cooper (1873) 16 LR Eq 102 .… 39.6 Mead v Lord Orrery (1745) 3 Atk 235; 26 ER 937 .… 11.17, 11.18, 39.8 Meah v Mouskos [1964] 2 QB 23; [1963] 3 All ER 908 .… 12.23

Measures v McFadyen (1910) 11 CLR 723 .… 17.5 Meder v Birt (1726) Gilb Rep in Eq 185; 25 ER 130 .… 33.14 Medforth v Blake [2000] Ch 86; [1999] 3 All ER 97 .… 18.2, 18.5, 18.14, 20.21, 20.22 Mediservices International Pty Ltd v Stocks and Realty (Security Finance) Pty Ltd [1982] 1 NSWLR 516 .… 17.9, 20.15, 20.37, 20.38 Medley, Re; Ex parte Barnes (1838) 3 Deac 223 .… 23.5 Medley, Re; Ex parte Glyn (1840) 1 Mont D & De G 29 .… 3.42 Meehan v Jones (1982) 149 CLR 571 .… 1.32 Meftah v Lloyds TSB Bank plc [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 741 .… 20.23, 20.34 Megevand, Re; Ex parte Delhasse (1878) 7 Ch D 511 .… 6.22 Mehrban Khan v Makhna (1930) 57 Ind App 168 .… 32.9 MEK Nominees Pty Ltd v Billboard Entertainment Pty Ltd (1993) V ConvR 54-468 .… 6.8, 19.2, 19.24 Melbourne Banking Corp v Brougham (1879) 4 App Cas 156 .… 22.9, 32.18, 39.10 Melbourne v Cottrell (1857) 29 LTOS 293 .… 40.24 Melland v Gray (1843) 2 Y & CCC 199; 63 ER 87 .… 16.40, 39.11 Meller v Woods (1836) 1 Keen 16; 48 ER .… 22.25 Mellersh v Brown (1890) 45 Ch D 225 .… 16.30, 39.43 Mellick v Mellick [1939] St R Qd 251 .… 19.39 Mellish v Vallins (1862) 2 John & H 194; 70 ER 1027 .… 29.3 Melverton v Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia (1989) ASC 55-921 .… 13.31 Mendl v Smith (1943) 143 LT 153; 112 LJ Ch 279 .… 3.13, 3.17, 39.42, 39.57 Merbank Corp Ltd v Cramp [1980] 1 NZLR 721 .… 13.42

Merbank Corp Ltd v Landel Corp of New Zealand Ltd (1979) 1 NZCPR 33 . … 28.7 Mercantile Bank of India Ltd v Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China and Strauss & Co Ltd [1937] 1 All ER 231 .… 11.41 Mercantile Bank of Sydney v Taylor [1893] AC 317 .… 35.11 Mercantile Building Co v Murphy (1888) 4 WN (NSW) 105 .… 4.29 Mercantile Credits Ltd v ANZ Banking Group (1988) 48 SASR 407 .… 25.12 Mercantile Credits Ltd v Archbold [1970] QWN 9 .… 4.37, 19.11, 19.14 Mercantile Credits Ltd v Atkins (1985) 1 NSWLR 670, 9 ACLR 757 .… 18.5, 19.21, 19.31 Mercantile Credits Ltd v Atkins (1985) 10 ACLR 153 .… 28.5 Mercantile Credits Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1988) 48 SASR 407 .… 25.16 Mercantile Credits Ltd v McDowell [1980] 2 NSWLR 101 .… 36.14, 39.49 Mercantile Credits Ltd v Shell Co of Australia Ltd (1976) 136 CLR 326 .… 4.13 Mercantile Investment and General Trust Co v International Co of Mexico [1893] 1 Ch 484n .… 8.2 Mercantile Investment and General Trust Co v River Plate Trust, Loan, and Agency Co [1892] 2 Ch 303 .… 1.46, 18.23 Mercantile Mutual Life Insurance Co Ltd v Gosper (1991) 25 NSWLR 32 . … 4.11, 4.12, 4.16, 4.31 Mercer and Moore, Re (1880) 14 Ch D 287 .… 37.13 Mercer v Graves (1872) LR 7 QB 499 .… 2.49, 2.51 Mercer v Vans Colina [1900] 1 QB 130 (n2) .… 26.4, 26.6 Merchant Banking Co of London v London and Hanseatic Bank (1886) 55 LJ Ch 479 .… 21.21 Meredith v Davis (1933) 33 SR (NSW) 334 .… 20.39, 39.24, 40.1, 40.3

Meretz Investments NV v ACP [1997] Ch 197; [2006] 3 All ER 1029 .… 14.10 Meretz Investments NV v ACP Ltd [2008] Ch 244 .… 20.11, 20.21 Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd v McLaurin and Tait (Developments) Pty Ltd (1976) 50 ALJR 743 .… 28.8 Merrewether v Mellish (1806) 13 Ves 161; 33 ER 255 .… 2.34 Merriman v Bonner (1864) 10 Jur NS 534 .… 40.27 Merry v Abney (1663) 1 Cas in Ch 38; 22 ER 682 .… 24.7, 24.10, 24.22 Mersey Rail Co, Re [1895] 2 Ch 287 .… 8.2 Messenger, Re; Ex parte Calvert (1876) 3 Ch D317 .… 2.42 Mestaer v Gillespie (1805) 11 Ves 621; 32 ER 1230; [1803–13] All ER Rep 594 .… 3.49, 11.3 Metcalf v Campion (1828) 1 Mol 238 .… 19.35, 39.30 Metcalfe v Archbishop of York (1836) 1 My & Cr 547; 40 ER 547 .… 2.4, 2.7 Metcalfe v Archbishop of York (1836) 6 Sim 224; 58 ER 577 .… 2.4, 2.7 Metcalfe v Pulvertoft (1813) 2 Ves & B 200; 35 ER 295 .… 33.5 Meter Cabs Ltd, Re [1911] 2 Ch 557 .… 2.48, 2.49 Metropolis and Counties Permanent Investment Building Society, Re; Gatfield’s Case [1911] 1 Ch 698 .… 32.87, 32.88 Metropolitan Amalgamated Estates Ltd, Re; Fairweather v Metropolitan Amalgamated Estates Ltd [1912] 2 Ch 497 .… 19.16 Metropolitan Gas Co v McIlwraith McEachern Ltd [1932] VLR 88 .… 1.7 Metropolitan Life Assurance Co v McQueen [1924] 2 DLR 942 .… 42.20 Metropolitan Railway Co, Re; Re Tower Hill Extension Act; Re Rawlins’ Estate; Ex parte Kent (1871) 19 WR 596 .… 26.1 Metropolitan Water Sewerage & Drainage Board v Aston Investment Pty Ltd (1978) 4 BPR 9728 .… 7.2, 41.12

Meux v Bell (1841) 1 Hare 73; 66 ER 955 .… 26.1, 26.3, 26.15, 26.16 Meux v Jacobs (1875) LR 7 HL 481 .… 1.20 Mexborough UDC v Harrison [1964] 2 All ER 109 .… 19.21 Meyer v Charters (1918) 34 TLR 589 .… 42.5 Meyerhoff v Zed [1923] SASR .… 2.11 Meynell v Howard (1696) Prec Ch 61; 24 ER 30 .… 17.1 Michael v Michael [1986] 2 FLR 389; [1986] Fam Law 334 .… 13.49 Middle Harbour Investments Ltd, Re [1977] 2 NSWLR 652 .… 37.13 Middleton v Brown (1878) 47 LJ Ch 411 .… 13.23 Middleton v Magnay (1864) 2 H & M 233; 71 ER 452 .… 2.9 Middleton v Middleton (1852) 15 Beav 450; 51 ER 612 .… 30.2 Middleton v Pollock; Ex parte Elliott (1876) 2 Ch D 104 .… 3.41 Midland Bank Ltd v Farmpride Hatcheries Ltd (1981) 260 EG 493 .… 24.21, 35.12 Midland Bank Ltd v Joliman Finance Ltd (1967) 203 Estates Gazette 612 .… 20.28 Midland Bank Ltd’s Application, Re [1941] Ch 350 .… 3.13, 17.3 Midland Bank plc v Perry (1989) 58 P & CR 221 .… 13.18 Midland Bank plc v Phillips (1986), Times, 28 March, CA .… 13.23 Midland Bank plc v Pike [1988] 2 All ER 434 .… 7.9 Midland Bank plc v Shephard [1988] 3 All ER 17 .… 13.17, 13.23, 13.25 Midland Bank Trust Co Ltd v Green [1981] AC 513; [1981] 1 All ER 153 . … 24.1, 27.11 Midland Credit Ltd v Hallad Pty Ltd (1977) 1 BPR 9570 .… 17.2, 19.36, 19.37, 19.38, 20.6, 37.5 Midland Express Ltd, Re [1914 ] 1 Ch 41 .… 8.2 Midland Montague Australia Ltd v Cuthbertson[1989] ACLD 666 .… 4.37

Midland Mortgage Australia Ltd v Cuthberton (1989) 17 NSWLR 309 .… 20.8 Midleton (Lord) v Eliot (1847) 15 Sim 531; 60 ER 725 .… 40.12 Midway Wood Products Pty Ltd v Permanent Custodians Pty Ltd [1991] ACL Rep 295 Vic 9 .… 20.24 Mihalic v Mihalic (1987) 73 ALR 304 .… 4.28 Mijac Investments Pty Ltd v Graham (No 2) (2009) 72 ACSR 684; [2009] FCA 77 .… 18.13, 20.11 Mike Griffikin Marine Pty Ltd v Princes Street Marine Pty Ltd (1995) 122 FLR 294; 17 ACSR 495 .… 20.54 Mildura Co-operative Fruit Co Ltd v Noyce [1928] VLR 390 .… 6.20 Miles v Picuga Pty Ltd (1996) 20 ACSR 156; 131 FLR 171 .… 9.12 Miles v Hussey (1909) 28 NZLR 382 .… 16.7 Miles v Langley (1831) 1 Russ & M 39; 39 ER 15; (1831) 2 Russ & M 626; 39 ER 533 .… 24.21 Miles v Official Receiver (1963) 109 CLR 501 .… 30.9 Miles v Picuga Pty Ltd (1996) 131 FLR 171; 20 ACSR 156 .… 9.10 Milgun Pty Ltd v Austco Pty Ltd [1988] 2 Qd R 670 .… 7.10 Millar, Re; Burns v ES&A Bank (1952) ABC 49 .… 1.23 Millar v Craig (1843) 6 Beav 433; 49 ER 893 .… 39.3 Millear, Re (1897) 22 VLR 542 .… 2.19 Miller, Re (1977) 545 F 2d 916 .… 5.38 Miller, Re 44 BR 716 (1984) .… 5.87 Miller v Cook (1870) LR 10 Eq 641 .… 13.11, 13.14 Miller v Minister of Mines [1963] AC 484; [1963] NZLR 560 .… 4.27, 27.3 Miller Gibb & Co Ltd, Re [1957] 1 WLR 703; [1957] 2 All ER 266 .… 2.29 Millett v Davey (1862) 31 Beav 470; 54 ER 1221 .… 39.33, 42.21 Millns v Borck [1985] BCL para 981 .… 4.14

Mills v Banks (1724) 3 P Wms 1; 24 ER 943 .… 11.12 Mills v Fowkes (1839) 5 Bing NC 455; 132 ER 1174 .… 32.52 Mills v Jennings (1880) 13 Ch D 639 .… 31.1, 32.27, 33.4 Mills v Lewis (1985) 3 BPR 9421 .… 19.11, 19.14 Mills v Osborne (1834) 7 Sim 30; 58 ER 748 .… 11.14 Mills v Renwick (1901) 1 SR (NSW) (Eq) 173 .… 4.3, 25.14, 27.10, 27.16, 28.15 Mills v Stokman (1967) 116 CLR 61 .… 4.15 Mills v United Counties Bank Ltd [1912] 1 Ch 231 .… 17.5 Milton Park Country Club Pty Ltd v Yasuda Trust Australia Ltd [1991] ACL Rep 295 NSW 3 .… 20.38 Minchillo v Ford Motor Co of Australia Ltd [1995] 2 VR 594 .… 5.10 Minn v Stant (1851) 12 Beav 190; 50 ER 1032 .… 33.4 Minn v Stant (1851) 15 Beav 49; 51 ER 454 .… 33.15 Minter v Carr [1894] 3 Ch 498 .… 31.1, 31.9, 36.10 Minot v Eaton (1826) 4 LJOS Ch 134 .… 39.11 Mir Bros Projects Pty Ltd v Lyons [1977] 2 NSWLR 192; [1978] 2 NSWLR 505 .… 30.9, 30.10 Mir Bros Projects Pty Ltd v 1924 Pty Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 907 .… 17.9, 20.15 Mirams, Re [1891] 1 QB 594 .… 13.49 Mister Broadloom Corp (1968) Ltd v Bank of Montreal (1984) 4 DLR (4th) 74 .… 17.9 Mitchell, Re; Wavell v Mitchell (1892) 65 LT 851 .… 33.4 Mitchell v Purnell Motors Pty Ltd [1961] NSWR 165 .… 6.6 Mitchelson v Mitchelson (1979) 24 ALR 522 .… 3.33 Mixon v Georgia Bank & Trust Company 154 Ga App 32 .… 5.94, 5.95

M’Kinleys Estate, Re (1873) 7 IR Eq 467 .… 19.34 Mobil Oil Canada Ltd v Rural Municipality of Storthoaks No 31 [1973] 6 WWR 644 .… 32.40 Mobil Oil Co Ltd v Rawlinson (1982) 43 P & CR 221 .… 1.51, 3.14, 19.12, 19.13, 19.16, 19.23 Modular Design Group Pty Ltd, Re (1994) 35 NSWLR 96 .… 3.8 Moet v Pickering (1878) 8 Ch D 372 .… 2.18, 2.24 Moffett v Dillon [1999] 2 VR 480 .… 24.34, 28.16 Mohamedali Jaffer Karachiwalla v Noorally Rattanshi Rajan Nanji [1959] AC 518; [1959] 1 All ER 137 .… 16.5 Molesworth v Robbins (1845) 2 Jo & Lat 358 .… 2.40, 24.27 Molton Finance Ltd, Re [1968] Ch 325; [1976] 3 All ER 843 .… 2.14, 3.31, 3.43, 11.41, 36.13 Molyneux v Richard [1906] 1 Ch 34 .… 12.2 Monas v Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd [2011] NSWCA 417; (2011) 80 NSWLR 739 Monkhouse v Bedford Corp (1810) 17 Ves 380; 34 ER 147 .… 22.33 Monks v Poynice Pty Ltd (1987) 8 NSWLR 662 .… 18.15 Montague v Earl of Sandwich (1886) 32 Ch D 525 .… 2.7, 6.21 Montague’s Settlement Trusts, Re [1992] 4 All ER 308 .… 24.20 Montecatini’s Patent, Re (1973) 47 ALJR 161 .… 39.7 Montefiore v Guedalla [1903] 2 Ch 26 .… 6.14, 26.1, 26.23 Montesquieu v Sandys (1811) 18 Ves 301; 34 ER 331 .… 42.2 Montgomery v Continental Bags (NZ) Ltd [1972] NZLR 884 .… 13.40 Montreal Trust Co v Hounslow Holdings Ltd (1972) 22 DLR (3d) 503 .… 39.36 Moodemere Pty Ltd v Waters [1988] VR 215 .… 8.11, 18.5, 18.15 Moody v Matthews (1802) 7 Ves 174; 32 ER 71 .… 3.29

Moore, Re; Ex parte Powell (1842) 6 Jur 490 .… 3.42 Moore v Kelly [1918] 1 IR 169 .… 13.9 Moore v Lean (1905) 5 SR (NSW) 671 .… 34.40 Moore v Lee (1871) 2 VR (L) 4 .… 12.10 Moore v Morton [1886] WN 196 .… 21.1, 21.13 Moore v North-Western Bank [1891] 2 Ch 599 .… 26.12 Moore v Painter (1842) 6 Jur 903 .… 19.36, 39.37 Moore v Shelley (1883) 8 App Cas 285 .… 12.9, 19.15 Moore v Woolsey (1854) 4 E & B 243; 119 ER 93 .… 6.15, 20.43, 20.44 Moore and Hulm’s Contract, Re [1912] 2 Ch 105 .… 3.3, 32.62 Moore and Texaco Canada, Re [1965] CLY 2548 .… 32.11 Moorgate Estates Ltd v Trover [1940] Ch 206 .… 37.3 Moran v Gardemeyer 23 P 8 (1889) (Cal) .… 3.8 Moray v Scandinavian Pacific Ltd (1992) 5 BPR 11,902 .… 13.36 Morgan, Re; Pillgrem v Pillgrem (1881) 18 Ch D 93 .… 24.30 Morgan v Cambridge Acceptance Pty Ltd [1966] 2 NSWR 556 .… 1.41 Morgan v Higgins (1859) 1 Giff 270; 65 ER 915 .… 42.3 Morgan v Jeffreys [1910] 1 Ch 620 .… 32.9 Morgan v Jones (1853) 8 Exch 620; 155 ER 1500 .… 39.43 Morgan v Jones [2001] EWCA Civ 995 .… 32.16 Morgan v Minett (1877) 6 Ch D 638 .… 42.2 Morland v Isaac (1855) 20 Beav 389; 52 ER 653 .… 6.15, 32.73 Morley, Re (1869) LR 8 Eq 594 .… 39.62 Morley v Bird (1758) 3 Ves 628; 30 ER 1192 .… 11.31 Morley v Loughnan [1893] 1 Ch 736 .… 13.22 Morley v Morley (1858) 25 Beav 253; 53 ER 633 .… 14.7, 33.6

Morling v Morling (1992) 16 Fam LR 161 .… 4.28 Morony v O’Dea (1809) 1 Ba & Be 109 .… 32.19 Morret v Paske (1740) 2 Atk 52; 26 ER 429 .… 25.4, 25.6, 39.19 Morris, Re [1908] 1 KB 473 .… 2.37 Morris, Re; Mayhew v Halton [1922] 1 Ch 126 .… 39.51 Morris v Baron & Co Ltd [1918] AC 1 .… 3.33 Morris v Burroughs (1737) 1 Atk 399; 26 ER 253 .… 13.16 Morris v Islip (1855) 20 Beav 654; 52 ER 756 .… 39.38, 40.10 Morris v Merbank Corp Ltd [1984] 1 NZLR 552 .… 28.16 Morris v Morris [1982] 1 NSWLR 61 .… 2.16 Morris Fletcher & Cross’ Bill of Costs, Re [1997] 2 Qd R 228 .… 40.21 Morrison, Re; Bennell v Smith [1962] Tas SR 337 .… 20.44 Morrison v Coast Finance Ltd (1965) 55 DLR (2d) 710 .… 13.12, 13.16 Morrison v Guaranty Trust Co of Canada (1972) 28 DLR (3d) 458 .… 36.9 Morrison v Morrison (1855) 2 Sm & Giff 564; 65 ER 527 .… 2.52 Morrison, Jones and Taylor Ltd, Re [1914] 1 Ch 50 .… 1.20 Morritt, Re; Ex parte Official Receiver (1886) 18 QBD 222 .… 1.11, 20.3, 20.6 Morritt, Re; Re Fada (Australia) Ltd [1932] SASR 134 .… 20.3 Mortgage Express Ltd v Bowerman & Partners [1996] 2 All ER 836 .… 42.6, 42.7 Mortgage Insurance Corp Ltd v Canadian Agricultural, Coal and Colonization Co Ltd [1901] 2 Ch 377 .… 8.8 Mortgage Insurance Corp Ltd v Pound (1895) 64 LJ QB 394 .… 35.8 Mortgage Management Ltd, Re [1978] 1 NZLR 494 .… 13.46 Mortleman v Public Trustee [1928] NZLR 337 .… 17.10 Morton, Re; Ex parte Morton and Westpac Banking Corp (1988) 79 ALR

206 .… 23.9 Morton v Black (1986) 4 BPR 9164 .… 20.37 Morton v Suncorp Finance Ltd (1987) 8 NSWLR 325 .… 20.15, 20.17, 20.18, 20.37 Morton v Woods (1869) LR 4 QB 293 .… 12.10, 12.20 Moschi v Lep Air Services Ltd [1973] AC 331 .… 35.8 Moseley v Cressey’s Co (1865) LR 1 Eq 405 .… 6.12 Moser v Marsden [1892] 1 Ch 487 .… 22.6 Moss, Re; Ex parte Hallett [1905] 2 KB 307 .… 42.16 Moss, Re; Levy v Sewill (1885) 31 Ch D 90 .… 32.36, 32.38 Moss v Gallimore (1779) 1 Doug KB 279; 99 ER 182 .… 3.24, 12.2, 12.4, 12.7, 12.9, 12.14, 19.30, 39.14 Moss v Williamson (1877) 3 VLR (E) 221 .… 13.9 Mostyn, Re; Ex parte Griffiths (1853) 3 DeG M& G 174; 43 ER 69 .… 36.13 Mostyn v Lancaster (1883) 23 Ch D 583 .… 11.7 Mostyn v Mostyn [1893] 3 Ch 376 .… 24.12 Motor Auctions Pty Ltd v John Joyce Wholesale Cars Pty Ltd (1997) 8 BPR 15,565 .… 3.32 Motor Credits Ltd v WF Wollaston Ltd (in liq)(1929) 29 SR (NSW) 227 .… 11.41 Moulis v Owen [1907] 1 KB 746 .… 13.46 Mounsey v Rankin (1885) 1 Cab & El 496 .… 1.40, 3.45 Mount Burnett Ltd v Chambers [1929] NZLR 609 .… 11.41 Mountford v Scott (1823) Turn & R 274; 37 ER 1105 .… 3.43 Mountford v Scott [1975] Ch 258 .… 27.11 Mountford, Ex parte (1808) 14 Ves 606; 33 ER 653 .… 3.40 Mower’s Trust, Re (1869) LR 8 Eq 110 .… 30.12

Moxon v Berkeley Mutual Benefit BuildingSociety (1890) 59 LJ Ch 524 .… 30.12 Moyes v Magnus Motors Ltd [1927] NZLR 906 .… 2.27 Muir v City of Glasgow Bank (1879) 4 App Cas 337 .… 3.13, 11.15 Muirhead v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1996) 125 FLR 434; 139 ALR 561 .… 18.3, 20.22, 28.3 Mulinglebar Pty Ltd v Wongala Holdings Pty Ltd (1994) NSW ConvR ¶55697 .… 20.15 Muller, Re; Ex parte Buxton (1880) 15 Ch D 289 .… 23.14 Mulliner v Florence (1878) 3 QBD 484 .… 3.55 Multiservice Bookbinding Ltd v Marden [1979] Ch 84; [1978] 2 All ER 489 .… 3.17, 17.2, 32.8, 32.12, 32.14, 32.15 Mulville v Munster and Leinster Bank (1891) 27 LR Ir 379 .… 24.15 Mumford v Stohwasser (1874) LR 18 Eq 556 .… 24.6 Municipal Permanent Investment Building Society v Smith (1888) 22 QBD 70 .… 12.23, 12.28 Munns v Isle of Wight Railway Co (1870) LR 5 Ch App 414 .… 2.13 Munro v Stuart (1924) 41 SR (NSW) 203 .… 4.15 Munrow v Stuart (1924), reported (1941) 41 SR (NSW) 203 .… 28.6 Murad v National Provincial Bank (1966) 198 EG 117 .… 33.8 Mure, Ex parte (1788) 2 Cox Eq Cas 63; 30 ER 30 .… 6.19 Murphy, Re Bankrupt Estate of; Donnelly v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd (1996) 140 ALR 46 .… 3.9 Murphy v Lawrence [1960] NZLR 772 .… 17.8 Murphy v New Zealand Newspapers Ltd [1983] NZLR 225 .… 32.39 Murphy v Westpac Banking Corp [1994] 1 NZLR 187 .… 10.12 Murphy v Wright (1992) 5 BPR 11734 .… 2.4, 2.7, 4.24, 4.28 Murphy v Zomonex Pty Ltd (1993) 31 NSWLR 439 .… 3.4, 3.25

Murray Bros (Parramatta) Pty Ltd v Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd (1983) Conveyancing Service (NSW) [92204] .… 18.7 Mur-Ray Management Corporation v Founders Title Company (1991) 169 Ariz 417 .… 5.44 Murrell, Re; Ex parte Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (1984) 57 ALR 85 .… 1.34, 1.39, 20.45, 20.46 Murugaser Marimuttu v De Soysa [1891] AC 69 .… 21.14, 33.10 Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583 .… 2.9, 2.16, 30.2 Musselwhite v C H Musselwhite & Son Ltd [1962] Ch 964; [1962] 1 All ER 201 .… 2.10, 6.16 Muston, Ex parte (1903) 3 SR (NSW) 663 .… 4.27 Muswellbrook Pty Ltd v Deutsche Bank (Asia) AG (1988) 12 NSWLR 16 . … 20.38 Mutual Federal Savings & Loan Association v Wisconsin Wire Works 205 NW (2d) 762 (1973) (Wis) .… 3.15 Mutual Life Assurance Society v Langley (1886) 32 Ch D 460 .… 21.13, 22.21, 22.28, 26.1, 26.5, 26.19, 26.24, 26.25, 26.27, 31.8, 31.9, 32.21, 32.23 Mutual Loan Fund Association v Sudlow (1858) 5 CB NS 449; 141 ER 183 . … 42.15 Mycock v Beatson (1879) 8 Ch D 384 .… 2.18 Myers v United Guarantee and Life Assurance Co (1855) 7 De GM & G 112; 44 ER 44 .… 24.33 Myross (NSW) Pty Ltd v Kahlefedldt Securities Pty Ltd (2003) 11 BPR 21,015 .… 3.15, 32.7, 32.36 N N H Dunn Pty Ltd v L M Ericsson (1979) 2 BPR 9241 .… 1.20 N W Robbie & Co Ltd v Witney Warehouse Co Ltd [1963] 3 All ER 613 .… 7.4, 8.18

Naas v Westminster Bank Ltd [1940] AC 366 .… 3.49 Nadrak Pty Ltd v Permanent Custodians Ltd (1994) 6 BPR 13,344 .… 32.55, 35.6 Nairn v Prowse (1802) 7 Ves 752; 31 ER 1291 .… 2.19 Nairn’s Application, Re [1961] VR 26 .… 4.24, 21.9, 22.52, 32.79 Nanfan v Perkins (1766) 9 Sim 308n; 59 ER 376 .… 22.35 Nanney v Morgan (1887) 37 Ch D 346 .… 6.5, 6.11 Nanny v Edwards (1827) 4 Russ 124; 38 ER 752 .… 22.31 Nant-y-glo & Blaina Ironworks Co v Tamplin (1876) 35 LT 125; [1874]– [1880] All ER Rep 1168 .… 14.2 Napier (Lord) v Hunter [1993] 1 All ER 385 .… 2.29 Narich Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Payroll Tax [1983] 2 NSWLR 597 .… 1.28 Nash v Eads (1880) 25 Sol Jo 95 .… 20.21 Nathan, Re (1863) 1 SALR (App) 166 .… 4.24 Nathan Securities Ltd v Stavefield Holdings (No 29) Ltd (1993) 6 BCB 227; [1993] ANZ ConvR 597 .… 20.30 National & Provincial Building Society v Ahmed [1995] 2 EGLR 127 .… 20.37 National Australia Bank Ltd v Blacker (2000) 104 FCR 288 .… 1.20, 1.23, 9.11 National Australia Bank Ltd v Bond Brewing Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 271; 92 ALR 49 .… 18.19 National Australia Bank Ltd v Chen-Conway [2008] NSWSC 448 .… 19.6 National Australia Bank Ltd v Clowes [2013] NSWCA 179 .… 1.33 National Australia Bank Ltd v Flair Realty Pty Ltd (1992) ANZ Conv R 241 .… 12.19 National Australia Bank Ltd v Jenkins (1999) V ConvR 54-601 .… 19.26, 19.36, 19.28

National Australia Bank Ltd v Mangos [1993] ACL Rep 295 Vic 9; (1993) V ConvR 54-475 .… 11.2, 13.27, 13.30, 13.31 National Australia Bank Ltd v Nobile (1988) 100 ALR 227; (1988) ATPR 40-856 .… 13.30, 13.31, 38.5 National Australia Bank Ltd v Sampson (No 2) (SC (NSW), Young J, 9 September 1991, unreported) .… 17.7 National Australia Bank Ltd v Sproule (1989) 17 NSWLR 505 .… 19.31, 20.21 National Australia Bank Ltd v State of New South Wales (2009) 182 FCR 52 .… 23.14 National Australia Bank Ltd v State of Victoria (2010) 118 ALD 527 .… 23.14 National Australia Bank Ltd v Zollo (1992) 59 SASR 76 .… 17.9 National Australia Bank v Convy [2007] NSWSC 1039 .… 20.38 National Australia Bank v Composite Buyers Ltd (1991) 6 ACSR 94 .… 18.15, 24.3 National Australia Bank v Finlay (1995) 13 ACLC 269 .… 8.19 National Bank Ltd v Hegarty (1901) 1 NIJR 13 .… 19.14 National Bank of Australasia Ltd v Falkingham [1902] AC 585 .… 6.21 National Bank of Australasia Ltd v Morrow (1887) 13 VLR 2 .… 24.51 National Bank of Australasia v Cohen (1896) 22 VLR 269 .… 22.14 National Bank of Australasia v United Hand-in-Hand and Band of Hope Co (1879) 4 App Cas 391 .… 18.21, 19.23, 20.21, 20.40, 33.7, 33.9, 39.2, 39.24, 39.37, 39.45, 39.50, 39.55, 40.9 National Bank of Eastern Arkansas v General Mills Inc 283 F (2d) 574 (1960) (Ark) .… 3.8 National Bank of Greece SA v Pinios Shipping Co (No 1) [1990] 1 AC 637; [1990] 1 All ER 78 .… 39.10, 39.50 National Bank of New Zealand Ltd v West [1978] 2 NZLR 451 .… 3.7

National Bank of Tasmania Ltd v McKenzie [1920] VLR 411 .… 17.1, 20.6, 21.18 National Bank v Behan [1913] 1 IR 512 .… 13.9 National Bank v Kenny [1898] 1 IR 197 .… 18.16 National Bus Co Ltd v FCT (1998) 98 ATC 4170 .… 5.94 National Carriers Ltd v Panalpina (Northern) Ltd [1981] AC 675 .… 37.8 National Commercial Banking Corp of Australia Ltd v Batty (1986) 160 CLR 251 .… 5.104 National Commercial Banking Corp of Australia Ltd v Hedley (1984) 3 BPR 9477 .… 4.19, 4.20, 11.3, 13.44, 17.2 National Commercial Banking Corp of Australia Ltd v Solanowski (1984) NSW Conv R 55-194 .… 20.28, 20.30 National Home Loans Corp plc v Giffen Couch & Archer [1997] 3 All ER 808 National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd v Godrich (1909) 10 CLR 1 .… 5.4 National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd v National Bank of Australasia Ltd [1944] QWN 7 .… 21.6, 22.55 National Operating, LP v Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York 244 Wis 2d 389 (2001) .… 5.136 National Permanent Benefit Building Society, Re; Ex parte Williamson (1870) 5 Ch App 309 .… 11.9, 11.19 National Permanent Building Society v Raper [1892] 1 Ch 54 .… 22.37 National Provincial and Union Bank of England v Charnley [1924] 1 KB 431 .… 1.37 National Provincial Bank of England Ltd v United Electric Theatres Ltd [1916] 1 Ch 132 .… 8.14 National Provincial Bank of England v Games (1886) 31 Ch D 582 .… 40.3, 40.23, 40.24, 40.25 National Provincial Bank of England v Jackson (1886) 33 Ch D 1 .… 24.44

National Trustees Executors and Agency Co, Ex parte (1898) 19 ALT 222 . … 4.8, 33.1 National Trustees Executors and Agency Co v Tindall [1933] VLR 369 .… 19.7 National Westminster Bank Ltd v Barclays Bank International Ltd [1975] QB 654; [1974] 3 All ER 834 .… 32.40 National Westminster Bank plc v Skelton [1993] 1 All ER 242; [1993] 1 WLR 72 .… 19.15, 19.23, 19.25 National Westminster Bank plc v Spectrum Plus Ltd [2005] UKHL 41 .… 5.118 National Westminster Bank plc v Morgan [1985] AC 686; [1985] 1 All ER 821 .… 13.22, 13.23, 13.39 Nationwide Building Society v Registry of Friendly Societies [1983] 1 WLR 1226; [1983] 3 All ER 296 .… 3.17, 17.2 Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Samalot Enterprises Pty Ltd (1986) 5 NSWLR227 .… 2.52 Natwest Finance New Zealand Ltd v United Finance & Securities Ltd (1987) ANZ Conv R 486 .… 20.34 Natwest Markets Australia Ltd v Mannix (1995) NSW ConvR 55-743 .… 19.2 Naxatu Pty Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd (2012) 92 ACSR 131; [2012] FCAFC 163 .… 25.7, 25.8, 30.9, 30.16 Neale v Mackenzie (1836) 1 M & W 747; 150 ER 635 .… 12.13 Nearhaze Pty Ltd v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (1999) 9 BPR 17,273 .… 1.35 NEC Information Systems Australia Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 518; 101 ALR 95 .… 28.2 Nedrak Pty Ltd v Permanent Custodians Ltd (1994) 6 BPR 13,344 .… 32.7 Needler v Deeble (1677) 1 Ch Cas 299; 22 ER 810 .… 22.6, 39.3 Neeld, Re [1962] Ch 643 .… 29.3

Neesom v Clarkson (1845) 4 Hare 97; 67 ER 576 .… 39.37 Neill v Hewens (1953) 89 CLR 1 .… 3.49 Nelson Diocesan Trust Board v Hamilton [1926] NZLR 342 .… 4.30, 17.10 Nelson v Booth (1857) 27 LJ Ch 110 .… 30.7, 42.3 Nelson v Booth (1858) 3 De G & J 119; 44 ER 1214 .… 39.33, 39.37 Nelson v Hannam [1943] Ch 59; [1942] 2 All ER 680 .… 3.29, 32.11, 32.60 Nelson v Page (1868) LR 7 Eq 25 .… 29.3 Nemeth v Reachcord Pty Ltd [1998] NSWConvR 55-873 .… 39.2, 40.3 Neon Signs (Australasia) Ltd, Re [1965] VR 125 .… 18.17 Nesbitt, Ex parte (1805) 2 Sch & Lef 279 .… 2.33, 2.40 Nesbitt v Tredennick (1808) 1 Ball & B 29 .… 3.29 Network Finance Ltd v Deposit & Investment Co Ltd [1972] QWN 19; 46 ALJ 413 .… 19.38, 20.43, 24.33, 25.3, 25.13, 25.16 Network Finance Ltd v Lane (1984) ANZ ConvR 571 .… 17.9 Neve v Pennell (1863) 2 Hem & M 170; 71 ER 427 .… 31.6, 31.10 New, Re; Ex parte Farley (1841) 1 Mont D & De G 683 .… 3.42, 3.43 New Beach Apartments Pty Ltd v Epic Hotels Pty Ltd (2007) 14 BPR 26,317 .… 20.40 New Bullas Trading Ltd, Re [1994] TLR 18 .… 8.13, 8.17, 11.39 New Hart Builders Ltd v Bradley [1975] Ch 342 .… 3.33 New Land Development Association and Gray, Re [1892] 2 Ch 138 .… 26.6 New London and Brazilian Bank v Brocklebank (1882) 21 Ch D 302 .… 24.30 New South Wales Medical Defence Union Ltd v Crawford (No 3) (23 November 1994, unreported, BC 9404919) .… 42.18 New South Wales v McCloy Hutcherson Pty Ltd (1993) 116 ALR 363 .… 16.36 New World Screen Printing Ltd v Xerox Canada [2003] BCSC 1685 .… 5.38

New Zealand Bloodstock Ltd v Waller [2005] NZCA 254; [2006] 3 NZLR 629 .… 5.1, 5.26, 5.29 Newbould v Smith (1886) 33 Ch D 127 .… 16.33 Newbould v Smith (1889) 14 App Cas 423 .… 16.33 Newcastle City Council v Kern Land Pty Ltd (1997) 42 NSWLR 273 .… 28.15, 28.16 Newcomb v Bonham (1861) 1 Vern 7; 23 ER 266 .… 32.11 Newdigate Colliery Ltd, Re [1912] 1 Ch 468 .… 18.4 Newen v Whetter (1862) 31 Beav 315; 54 ER 1160 .… 39.3 Newington Local Board v Eldridge (1879) 12 Ch D 349 .… 2.36 Newlands v Paynter (1839) 4 My & Cr 408;41 ER 158 .… 24.49 Newman v Cook [1963] VR 659 .… 1.53 Newman v Newman (1885) 28 Ch D 674 .… 6.15, 24.6 Newman Air Charter Pty Ltd, Re (1991) 6 ASCR 435 .… 20.15 Newmand v Real Estate Debenture Corp Ltd and Flower Decorations Ltd [1940] 1 All ER 131 .… 24.14 Newmarch, Re; Newmarch v Storr (1878) 9 Ch D 12 .… 29.2, 29.3 Newsham v Gray (1742) 2 Atk 286; 26 ER 575 .… 33.24 Newshul v Mellish & Harkavy (1967) 111 Sol Jo 399 .… 42.6 Newton v Earl of Egmont (1831) 4 Sim 574; 58 ER 215 .… 22.8 Newton v Harland (1840) 1 Man & G 644; 133 ER 490 .… 19.19 Newton v Newton (1868) LR 4 Ch App 143 .… 24.40 Newton v Newton (1868) LR 6 Eq 135 .… 24.40 Nguyen v Taylor (1992) 27 NSWLR 48 .… 13.36 Nia v Phuong (1993) 6 BPR 13,141 .… 10.1, 10.4, 25.8, 25.8, 25.12 NIAA Corp Ltd, Re (1993) 12 ASCR 141 .… 10.15 Nichibo Trading Company New Zealand Ltd v Lucich HC Auckland [2011]

NZHC 722; (2011) 9 NZBLC 103,253 .… 5.104 Nichol v Allenby (1889) 17 OR 275 .… 33.2 Nicholas v Ridley (1904) 89 LT 234 .… 31.10 Nicholas v Ridley [1904] 1 Ch 192 .… 25.5, 31.10, 35.12, 42.14 Nicholas, Re (1951) 68 WN (NSW) 193 .… 4.38, 32.55 Nicholas John Holdings Pty Ltd v ANZ Banking Group Ltd [1992] 2 VR 715 .… 20.38 Nicholls v Short (1713) 2 Eq Cas Abr 608; 22 ER 511; 15 Vin Abr 478 .… 33.12 Nichols v Stewart Title & Trust of Tucson (1988) 88 BR 871 .… 5.44 Nicholson, Re; Ex parte Quin (1883) 49 LT 811 .… 2.42 Nicholson, Re; Nicholson v Boulton [1923] WN 251 .… 29.2 Nicholson v Chapman (1793) 2 H Bl 254; 126 ER 536 .… 2.17 Nicholson v England [1926] 2 KB 93 .… 16.31, 16.35 Nicholson v Revill (1836) 4 Ad & El 675; 111 ER 941 .… 32.50, 35.11 Nicholson v Tutin (No 2) (1857) 3 K & J 159; 69 ER 1063 .… 19.41 Nicobar Pty Ltd v Abrokiss Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 1247 .… 40.26 Nickerson & Nickerson, Inc, Re (1971) 452 F 2d 56 .… 5.36 Niemann v Niemann (1889) 43 Ch D 198 .… 11.29 Ninety Five Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Banque Nationale de Paris [1988] WAR 132 .… 13.46 Nioa v Bell (1901) 27 VLR 82 .… 4.13, 14.1, 14.11, 15.2, 17.5 Nisbet and Potts’ Contract, Re [1905] 1 Ch 391; [1906] 1 Ch 386 .… 24.15 Nives v Nives (1880) 15 Ch D 649 .… 22.15 Nixon v Commercial and General Acceptance Ltd [1980] Qd R 153 .… 20.28 Noakes v Harvy Holmes & Son (1979) 26 ALR 297 .… 13.5, 13.7

Noakes & Co Ltd v Rice [1902] AC 24 .… 1.7, 4.10, 32.8, 32.14 Nobbs, Re; Nobbs v Law Reversionary Interest Society [1896] 2 Ch 830 .… 33.8 Noble, Re; Ex parte Douglas (1833) Deac & Ch 310 .… 2.32 Nolin Production Credit Association v Canmer Deposit Bank (1986) 726 SW 2d 693 .… 5.38 Norfolk Rly Co v M’Namara (1840) 3 Exch 628; 154 ER 996 .… 36.15 Norgard v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1987) 85 FLR 220 .… 8.14, 8.20 Norman Holding Co Ltd, Re [1990] 3 All ER 757; [1991] 1 WLR 10 .… 1.4, 1.6 Norman v Beaumont [1893] WN 45 .… 21.21, 21.23 Norman v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1963) 109 CLR 9 .… 5.32, 6.4, 6.5, 7.2, 6.9, 6.11, 6.21, 6.23, 14.7 Norris v Caledonian Insurance Co (1869) LR 8 Eq 127 .… 39.17 Norris v Wilkinson (1806) 12 Ves 192; 33 ER 73 .… 3.40 Norrish v Marshall (1821) 5 Madd 475; 56 ER 977 .… 22.2, 33.16 North Brisbane Finance and Insurances Pty Ltd, Ex parte [1983] 2 Qd R 684 .… 9.15, 9.16 North City Developments; Ex parte Walker (1990) 20 NSWLR 286 .… 18.4 North Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v Hyundai Construction Co Ltd [1979] 1 QB 705 .… 13.38 North Platte State Bank v Production Credit Association of North Platte (1972) 200 NW 2d 1 .… 5.82, 5.89 North Shore City Council v Stiassny [2009] 1 NZLR 342 .… 5.20 North Wales Produce and Supply Society Ltd, Re [1922] 2 Ch 340 .… 11.41 North West Construction Co Pty Ltd v Marian [1965] WAR 205 .… 2.48 North West Trust Co v Rezyn Developments Inc (1991) 81 DLR (4th) 75 .… 1.20, 3.26

Northern Assurance Co Ltd v Farnham Breweries Ltd [1912] 2 Ch 125 .… 8.2 Northern Bank Ltd v Henry [1981] IR 1 .… 24.14 Northern Bank Ltd v Ross [1991] BCLC 504 .… 6.19, 11.39 Northern Banking Co Ltd v Devlin [1924] 1 IR 90 .… 19.14 Northern Counties of England Fire Insurance Co v Whipp (1884) 26 Ch D 482 .… 24.37, 24.43, 24.47, 40.5 Northern Developments (Holdings) Ltd v UDT Securities [1977] 1 All ER 747 .… 20.6, 20.20 Northside Development Pty Ltd v Registrar General (1990) 170 CLR 146 .… 4.18, 11.33 Northwestern National Bank Southwest v Lectro Systems Inc 262 NW 2d 678 (1977) .… 5.79 Norton v Cooper (1854) 25 LJ Ch 121; 43 ER 1053 .… 39.33, 40.11, 42.21 Norton v Yates [1906] 1 KB 112 .… 7.14, 8.19, 20.47 Norwich and Peterborough Building Society v Steed [1993] Ch 116 .… 13.41 Norwich General Trust v Grierson [1984] CLY 2306 .… 19.37, 39.31 Norwich Union Insurance Society v Preston [1957] 2 All ER 428; [1957] 1 WLR 813 .… 19.26 Nos 56 and 58, Albert Rd, Norwood, Re [1916] 1 Ch 289 .… 22.18 Notaras v Sly & Weigall (2005) 12 BPR 23,765 (CA) .… 4.37, 20.11, 20.38 Novosielski v Wakefield (1811) 17 Ves 417; 34 ER 161 .… 22.29, 33.23 Noyes v Pollock (1885) 30 Ch D 336 .… 39.32 Noyes v Pollock (1886) 32 Ch D 53 .… 12.23, 19.21, 19.35 NRG Vision Ltd v Churchfield Leasing Ltd [1988] BCLC 624 .… 18.7 NRMA Insurance Ltd v Individual Homes Pty Ltd (1988) 92 FLR 1 .… 20.8 NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power and Water Authority (2004) 219 CLR

90 .… 5.25 Nugent v Gifford (1738) 1 Atk 463; 26 ER 294 .… 11.18 Nunes and District Registrar for the District of Winnipeg, Re (1972) 21 DLR (3d) 97 .… 20.40 Nunn v Wily (2001) 10 BPR 18,983 .… 1.25, 3.6, 24.29, 39.57 Nutt v Easton [1899] 1 Ch 873; [1900] 1 Ch 29 .… 20.40 NV Slavenburg’s Bank v Intercontinental Natural Resources Ltd [1980] 1 All ER 955 .… 11.39 NZI Capital Corp Ltd v Ianthe Pty Ltd (1991) ACL [185 NSW 22] .… 13.38 NZI Capital Corp Pty Ltd v Child (1991) 23 NSWLR 481 .… 3.13, 39.42 O Oakeley v Pasheller (1836) 10 Bli NS 548; 6 ER 202 .… 35.8 Oatley v Oatley (1898) 19 LR (NSW) (Eq) 129 .… 11.6 Obie Pty Ltd (No 2), Re (1983) 8 ACLR 574 .… 8.20 O’Brien, In the Will of [1924] VLR 262 .… 29.2 O’Brien, Re (1883) 11 IR 213 .… 1.23 O’Brien v Skidmore [1951] NZLR 884 .… 17.2 O’Byrne’s Estate, Re (1885) 15 LR (IR) 373 .… 25.8 Occidental Life Assurance Co of Australia Ltd v Life Style Planners Pty Ltd (1992) 9 ACSR 171 .… 32.41 Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corp v Collum [1913] 1 IR 337 .… 30.5, 32.84 Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corp v Ilford Gas Co [1905] 2 KB 493 .… 12.14, 19.11, 19.14, 19.30 Ocean National Bank v Palmer 457 A 2d 1225 (1938) .… 5.104 O’Connell v O’Connell (1894) 20 VLR 253 .… 13.9 O’Connor v McCarthy [1982] IR 161 .… 24.14

Octavo Investments Pty Ltd v Knight (1979) 144 CLR 360 .… 2.9, 2.18 O’Day v Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd (1933) 50 CLR 200 .… 16.11, 42.13 O’Dea v Allstates Leasing System (WA) Pty Ltd (1983) 152 CLR 359 .… 3.15, 3.18, 32.15 Odessa Promotions Pty Ltd, Re (1979) ACLC 40-523 .… 18.15 Odessa, The [1916] 1 AC 145 .… 1.11 Oertel v Hordern (1902) 2 SR (NSW) (Eq) 37 .… 4.15 Official Assignee of Reeves & Williams v Dorrington [1918] NZLR 702 .… 2.49 Official Custodian for Charities v Mackey [1985] Ch 168 .… 37.11 Official Custodian for Charities v Mackey (No 2) [1985] 1 WLR 1308; [1985] 2 All ER 1016 .… 37.11 Official Receiver v Cooke [1906] 2 Ch 661 .… 26.6 Official Solicitor to the Supreme Court v Thomas (1986) 279 EG 407 .… 32.45 Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Citibank Savings Ltd (1995) 38 NSWLR 116 .… 30.2, 30.4 Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Kioussis (2000) 10 BPR 18,021 .… 2.35 Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Mateo (2003) 202 ALR 571 .… 13.8 Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Westpac Banking Corp Ltd (1987) 77 ALR 677 .… 39.16 Ogden v Battams (1855) 1 Jur NS 791 .… 1.30, 39.7 O’Geran v McSwiney (1874) 1 R 8 Eq 500 .… 2.17 Ogilvie v Adams [1981] VR 1041 .… 16.8, 16.29, 16.31 Ogle v Story (1833) 4 B & Ad 735; 110 ER 632 .… 2.41 O’Keeffe v O’Flynn Exhams & Partners (1992) HC (Ireland) .… 11.3 Old Inns of NSW Pty Ltd, Re [1994] ACL 120 NSW 27 .… 11.39

Oldham v Hand (1751) 2 Ves Sen 259; 28 ER 167 .… 42.2 Oldham v Stringer (1884) 51 LT 895; 33 WR 251 .… 3.36, 21.17, 21.21, 21.22 O’Leary, Re; Ex parte Bayne (1985) 61 ALR 674 .… 30.9, 30.11 Oliver, Re; Ex parte Jones (1837) 3 Mont& A 152 .… 3.40, 3.43 Oliver v Hinton [1899] 2 Ch 264 .… 24.15, 24.37 Oliveri v PM Sulcs & Associates Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 590; 16 BPR 28590 .… 2.48 O’Loughlin v Dwyer (1884) LR Ir 13 Ch D75 .… 2.17 O’Loughlin v Fitzgerald (1873) 7 IR Eq 483 .… 36.4 Olsson v Dyson (1969) 120 CLR 365 .… 6.5, 6.11 Onawa State Bank v Simpson 403 NW (2d) 791 (1987) (Iowa) .… 3.8 Oneal v Mead (1720) 1 P Wms 693; 24 ER 574 .… 30.3 One.Tel Ltd (in liq) v Rich (2005) 190 FLR 443 .… 5.5 One-Tel Networks Holdings (2001) 40 ACSR 83 .… 20.40 Onslow’s Trusts, Re (1875) LR 20 Eq 677 .… 13.46, 24.50 Ontario (AG) v Tyre King Recycling Ltd (1992) 9 OR (3d) 318 .… 37.5 Ontario Dairy Cow Leasing v Ontario Milk Marketing Board (1993) 4 PPSAC (2d) 269 .… 5.72 Onward Building Society v Smithson [1893] 1 Ch 1 .… 19.18 Orakpo v Manson Investments Ltd [1978] AC 95; [1977] 3 All ER 1 .… 2.14, 24.5, 42.17, 42.19 Orby v Trigg (1722) 9 Mod Rep 2; 88 ER 276 .… 32.11 Orchard v Rackstraw (1850) 9 CB 698; 137 ER 1066 .… 2.22 O’Reilly v Heydon (1893) 14 LR (NSW) Eq 283 .… 3.13, 3.15, 32.6 Oriental Hotels Co, Re; Perry v Oriental Hotels Co (1871) LR 12 Eq 126 .… 40.19 Orion Finance Ltd v Crown Financial Management Ltd [1996] 2 BCLC 78 .

… 1.29, 6.20 Orix v Milne [2007] NZHC 507; 3 NZLR 637 .… 5.104 Ormsby v Thorpe (1808) 2 Mol 503 .… 22.5 O’Rorke v Bolingbroke (1877) 2 App Cas 814 .… 13.14, 13.30 Orr v Ford (1989) 167 CLR 316 .… 17.9 Ortigosa v Brown Janson & Co (1878) 47 LJ Ch 168 .… 6.17 Ory and Ory v Betamore Pty Ltd (1990) 54 SASR 331 .… 5.4 Osborne Computer Corp Pty Ltd v Airroad Distribution Pty Ltd (1995) 17 ACSR 614 .… 1.11 O’Shea, Re [1911] 2 KB 981 .… 13.47 Osmanoski v Rose [1974] VR 523 .… 28.15, 28.16 Ostabridge Pty Ltd v Adelaide Brighton Ltd [2007] NSWCA 59 .… 20.8, 20.11 Ostrander v Niagra Helicopters Ltd (1973) 20 DLR (3d) 161 .… 18.5 Otter v Lord Vaux (1856) 6 De G M & G 638; 43 ER 1381 .… 4.12, 4.25, 20.40, 20.49, 32.60, 36.9, 39.19 Overend, Gurney & Co v Oriental Finance Corp (1874) LR 7 HL 348 .… 35.8 Overlack v Martin [1955] QWN 56 .… 21.4, 22.15, 22.25, 33.23 Overmark Smith Warden, Re [1982] 3 All ER 513; [1982] 1 WLR 1195 .… 16.34 Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd (OCBC) v Malaysian Kuwaiti Investment Co (MKIC) and Aljade [2003] VSC 495 .… 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 24.10, 24.16, 24.35, 24.46, 25.7, 25.8, 25.12, 25.16, 36.9 Overton Investments Pty Ltd v Cuzeno RVM Pty Ltd [2003] NSWCA 27 .… 3.8 Owen and Gutch v Homan (1853) 4 HL Cas 997; 10 ER 752 .… 13.31 Owen v Cornell (1967) 203 EG 29 .… 19.13

Owen v Crouch (1857) 5 WR 545 .… 40.23 Owen v Homan (1851) 3 mac & G 378; 42 ER 307 .… 18.19, 36.13 Owen v Tate [1976] QB 402 .… 42.13 Owen, Re [1894] 3 Ch 220 .… 2.7, 3.36, 21.10, 21.18 Oxenham v Ellis (1854) 18 Beav 593; 52 ER 233 .… 19.39, 39.41 Oxford etc Railway Co, Re (1849) 1 De G & Sm 728; 63 ER 1270 .… 2.47 P P & A Swift Investments (a firm) v Combined English Stores Group plc [1988] 2 All ER 885 .… 19.40 P & M Thompson Pty Ltd v Total Australia Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 1 .… 13.35 Paccar Financial Services v Sinco Trucking Ltd (Trustee of) (1989) 9 PPSAC 7; 57 DLR (4th) 438 .… 5.24, 5.25 Paddington Building Society v Mendelsohn (1985) 50 P & CR 244 .… 24.1, 24.21 Paddon v Richardson (1855) 7 De G M & G563; 44 ER 219 .… 11.14 Page v Linwood (1837) 4 Cl & Fin 399; 7 ER 154 .… 39.25, 39.36 Page v Newman (1829) 9 B & C 378; 109 ER 140 .… 39.42 Paget v Paget [1898] 1 Ch 470 .… 30.7 Pain, Re; Gustavson v Haviland [1919] 1 Ch 38 .… 6.5, 6.24, 24.31, 26.18 Paine v Edwards (1862) 6 LT 600 .… 16.15, 21.16 Painten and Nottingham Ltd v Miller Gale & Winter [1971] NZLR 164 .… 1.9 Palette Shoes Pty Ltd (in liq) v Krohn (1937) 58 CLR 1 .… 5.32, 6.19, 6.21 Palgo Holdings Pty Ltd v Gowans (2005) 221 CLR 249; 215 ALR 253; 79 ALJR 1121 .… 1.11, 5.43 Palk v Lord Clinton (1805) 12 Ves 48; 33 ER 19 .… 33.3, 33.7, 33.10 Palk v Lord Clinton (1806) 12 Ves 48; 34 ER 1096 .… 32.25

Palk v Mortgage Services Funding plc [1993] Ch 330; [1993] 2 All ER 481 . … 20.22, 20.23, 20.24, 20.28, 21.12, 21.13, 21.15, 21.21, 21.23, 22.20, 32.3 Pallos v Munro (1970) 72 SR (NSW) 507 .… 36.1, 36.3, 36.16 Palmer v Barclays Bank Ltd (1971) 23 P & CR 30 .… 1.23, 3.46, 20.21, 20.50, 20.52 Palmer v Carey [1926] AC 703 .… 6.11, 6.12 Palmer v Earl of Carlisle (1823) 1 Sim & St 423; 57 ER 169 .… 22.4 Palmer v Hendrie (1859) 27 Beav 349; 54 ER 136 .… 16.7, 16.11, 21.5, 22.38 Palmer v Hendrie (No 2) (1860) 28 Beav 341; 54 ER 397 .… 22.38 Palmer v Locke (1881) 18 Ch D 381 .… 26.4, 26.27 Palmer v Wright (1846) 10 Beav 234; 50 ER 572 .… 3.32 Palmer’s Decoration and Furnishing Co, Re [1904] 2 Ch 743 .… 8.2 Panama, New Zealand and Australia Royal Mail Co, Re (1870) 5 Ch App 318 .… 8.12, 8.14, 8.19 Pandoorung Bullal Pundit v Balkrishen Hurba-Jee Mahajun (1838) 2 Moo Ind App 60; 18 ER 224 .… 16.39 Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614; [1979] 3 All ER 65 .… 13.38 Papesch, Re [1992] 1 NZLR 751 .… 1.35, 2.27 Papua and New Guinea Development Bankv Manton [1982] VR 1000 .… 17.7 Paradise Constructions & Co Pty Ltd v Poyser [2007] VSCA 316; 20 VR 294 .… 4.15 Paragon Finance plc v Pender [2005] EWCA Civ 760; [2005] 1 WLR 3412 . … 14.10 Paragon Finance plc v Staunton; Paragon Finance v Nash [2002] 1 WLR 685; [2002] 2 All ER 248 .… 3.8, 3.17 Parbola Ltd, Re; Blackburn v Parbola Ltd [1909] 2 Ch 437 .… 22.6, 22.31,

33.6 Pargeter v Harris (1845) 7 QB 708 .… 12.20 Parish v Poole (1884) 53 LT 35 .… 1.40 Parist Holdings Pty Ltd v Perpetual NomineesLtd (2006) NSW Conv R ¶56161 .… 20.38 Park v Brady [1976] 2 NSWLR 329 .… 32.86, 32.89 Parkash v Irani Finance Ltd [1970] Ch 101; [1969] 1 All ER 930 .… 36.9 Parker, Re; Ex parte Turquand (1885) 14 QBD 636 .… 15.2 Parker v Braithwaite [1952] 2 All ER 837 .… 12.17, 12.19 Parker v Brooke (1804) 9 Ves 583; 32 ER 729>.… 24.18 Parker v Butcher (1867) LR 3 Eq 762 .… 32.33, 39.50 Parker v Calcraft (1821) 6 Madd 11; 56 ER 992 .… 19.34, 39.28, 39.29 Parker v Fuller (1830) 1 Russ & M 656 .… 22.5 Parker v Housefield (1834) 2 My & K 419; 39 ER 1004 .… 3.37, 21.3, 21.9, 22.25, 33.23 Parker v Jackson [1936] 2 All ER 281 .… 1.48, 14.1, 15.2 Parker v Rock Finance Corp Ltd [1981] 1 NZLR 488 .… 17.9 Parker v Watkins (1859) Johns 133; 70 ER 369 .… 39.27, 40.23 Parker and Parker (No 1), Re; Ex parte Turquand (1884) 14 QBD 405 .… 23.14 Parker-Tweedale v Dunbar Bank plc [1991] Ch 12; [1990] 2 All ER 577 .… 12.9, 20.21, 20.22 Parker-Tweedale v Dunbar Bank plc (No 2) [1991] Ch 26; [1990] 2 All ER 588 .… 40.2, 40.23 Parkes, Re; Ex parte Parkes (1822) 1 Gl & J 228 .… 2.19 Parkes Garage (Swadlincote) Ltd, Re [1929] 1 Ch 139 .… 8.24 Parkinson v Braham [1962] 62 SR (NSW) 663 .… 12.18, 19.3 Parkinson v Hanbury (1860) 1 Drew & Sm 143; 62 ER 332 .… 20.20, 20.40

Parkinson v Hanbury (1867) LR 2 HL 1 .… 39.3, 39.25 Parkinson v Wainwright & Co (1895) 64 LJ Ch 493 .… 8.8 Parkinson’s Estate, Re (1865) 13 LT 26 .… 1.34, 1.40 Parramatta River Lodge Pty Ltd v Sunman (1991) 5 BPR 12,038 .… 3.21, 40.21 Parr’s Banking Co v Yates [1898] 2 QB 460 .… 32.51 Parry v Great Ship Co (1863) 4 B & S 556; 122 ER 568 .… 1.30, 16.13 Parry v Wright (1823) 1 Sim & St 369; 57 ER 148 .… 36.6 Parry v Wright (1823) 5 Russ 142; 38 ER 981 .… 36.11 Parsons v McBain (2001) 109 FCR 120 .… 30.7, 30.8 Parteriche v Powlett (1742) 2 Atk 383; 26 ER 632 .… 30.7 Partnership Pacific Securities Ltd, Re [1992] ACL 295 Qld 5 .… 1.51, 4.8, 4.9 Partridge v McIntosh and Sons Ltd (1933) 49 CLR 453 .… 3.23, 12.11 Pascoe-Webbe v Nusuna Pty Ltd (1985) 3 BPR 9620 .… 12.14 Pascon Pty Ltd v San Marco in Lamis Cooperative Social Club Ltd [1991] 2 VR227 .… 36.1, 36.3, 36.16 Passieu v BF Goodrich Co 58 Ga App 691, 199 SE 775 (1938) .… 5.94 Pastoral Finance Assoc Ltd, Re (1922) 35 SR (NSW) 43 .… 3.20 Patch v Ward (1862) 4 Giff 96; 66 ER 635 .… 22.35 Patch v Ward (1865) LR 1 Eq 436 .… 3.32 Patch v Ward (1867) LR 3 Ch App 203 .… 21.7, 22.35, 22.36, 22.37, 22.39, 33.5 Patch v Wild (1861) 30 Beav 99; 54 ER 826 .… 39.37 Patchell v Maunsell (1881) 7 VLR(E) 6 .… 4.28, 24.51 Patent Bread Machinery Co, Re; Ex parte Valpy and Chaplin (1872) 7 Ch App 289 .… 42.4

Patent File Co, Re; Ex parte Birmingham Banking Co (1870) 6 Ch App 83 . … 11.8 Paterson v Irvine [1926] NZLR 352 .… 4.30, 17.10 Paterson v McNaghten (1905) 2 CLR 615 .… 20.18 Patience, Ex parte; Makinson v The Minister (1940) 40 SR (NSW) 96 .… 2.48, 2.49, 2.51, 38.4 Patten v Bond (1889) 60 LT 583 .… 42.18 Patterson v Roden (1972) 223 EG 945 .… 13.45, 19.23 Paul and Frank Ltd v Discount Bank (Overseas) Ltd [1967] Ch 348 .… 6.20 Paul Kennedy Transport Pty Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1993) 6 BPR 13,883 .… 3.10, 16.8, 18.6 Paul v Spierway Ltd (in liq) [1976] Ch 220 .… 2.14, 11.9, 42.18, 42.19 Pauling’s Settlement Trusts, Re [1964] Ch 303 at 337; [1963] 3 All ER 1 .… 13.22 Pauly, Re (1994) 115 FLR 473 .… 2.7 Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221 .… 24.48 Pawlett v AG (1667) Hard 465; 145 ER 550 .… 32.2 Pawson v Revell [1958] 2 QB 360; [1958] 3 All ER 233 .… 12.24 Pawson’s Settlement, Re; Higgins v Pawson [1917] 1 Ch 541 .… 6.24, 19.21, 19.45 Payne v Cardiff Rural District Council [1932] 1 KB 241 .… 20.6 Payne v Compton (1837) 2 Y & C Ex 457; 160 ER 476 .… 22.11 Payne v Esdaile (1888) 13 App Cas 613 .… 1.9, 16.28 Payne v Hornby (1858) 25 Beav 280; 53 ER 643 .… 2.18 Payne v R [1902] AC 552 .… 1.44, 16.17 Paynter v Carew (1854) Kay App xxxvi; 69 ER 331 .… 16.7 Peacock v Burt (1834) 4 LJ Ch 33 .… 25.4 Peake’s Abattoirs Ltd, Re [1986] BCLC 73 .… 14.6

Pearce, Re [1909] 2 Ch 492 .… 31.2 Pearce, Re [1936] SASR 137 .… 11.12 Pearce, Re; Ex parte Official Receiver [1919] 1 KB 354 .… 7.11 Pearce v Bulteel [1916] 2 Ch 544 .… 24.6 Pearce v Morris (1869) LR 5 Ch App 227>.… 21.13, 32.20, 32.48, 32.55, 33.3 Pearce v Watkins (1852) 5 De G & Sm 315; 64 ER 1132 .… 40.13 Pearl v Deacon (1857) 1 De G & J 461; 44 ER 802 .… 34.8 Pearl v Deacon (1857) 24 Beav 186; 53 ER 328 .… 32.54 Pearl v Deacon (1857) 24 Beav 186; 53 ER 328 .… 42.13, 42.15 Pearse v Hewitt (1835) 7 Sim 471; 58 ER 918 .… 33.13 Pearse, Ex parte (1900) 16 WN (NSW) 262 .… 27.10 Pearson v Benson (1860) 28 Beav 598 .… 42.4 Peaslee, Re 13 NY 3d 75; 69 UCC Rep Serv 2d315 (2009) .… 5.81, 5.82 Peat v Clayton [1906] 1 Ch 659 .… 26.12 Peat v Nicholson (1886) 54 LT 569 .… 22.37 Peat Marwick Ltd v Consumers’ Gas Co (1980) 113 DLR (3d) 754 .… 18.5 Peers v Ceeley (1852) 15 Beav 209; 51 ER 517 .… 40.23 Peeters v Schimanski [1975] 2 NZLR 328 .… 13.12, 13.22 Pegasus Leasing Ltd v Cofini (SC (NSW), Powell J, 13 November 1991, noted 67 ALJ 467) .… 2.22 Pegg v Wisden (1852) 16 Beav 239; 51 ER 770 .… 1.27 Pegler v Dale [1975] 1 NSWLR 265 .… 23.1 Peirs v Peirs (1750) 1 Ves Sen 521; 27 ER 1180 .… 30.7 Pelly v Wathen (1849) 7 Hare 351; 68 ER 144 .… 22.21, 31.1, 33.8, 33.22 Pelly v Wathen (1851) 1 De GM & G 16; 42 ER 457 .… 2.36, 2.40, 2.41, 22.21, 24.27

Pelonoy Pty Ltd v Donovan Oates Hannaford Mortgage Corp [2004] NSWSC 4 .… 2.52 Pembrooke v Friend (1860) 1 John & H 132; 70 ER 692 .… 29.2 Pendlebury v Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd (1912) 13 CLR 676 .… 20.21, 20.22, 20.23, 20.32, 20.33 Penketh v Midword (1914) 33 NZLR 1399 .… 7.10 Penny v Walker (1855) 24 LJ Ch 319 .… 37.5 Penny Nominees Pty Ltd v Fountain (SC (NSW), Young J, 2 May 1989, unreported) .… 3.45 Penny Nominees Pty Ltd v Fountain (No 3) (1990) 5 BPR 11284 .… 3.45, 11.4, 11.6, 37.6 Pennywise Smart Shopping Australia Pty Ltd v Sommer & Co Pty Ltd (1992) 9 ACSR 557 .… 8.24 Percival v Dunn (1885) 29 Ch D 128 .… 6.12 Percival Mercury Sales Ltd v Touche Ross Ltd (1984) 4 PPSAC 65 .… 5.112 Performing Right Society Ltd v London Theatre of Varieties Ltd [1924] AC 1 .… 6.9, 6.24, 6.25 Perham v Kempster [1907] 1 Ch 373 .… 24.6 Perimeter Transportation Ltd, Re (2010) 71 CBR (5th) 134; 17 PPSAC (3d) 337 .… 5.112 Perkins v Bradley (1842) 1 Hare 219; 66 ER 1013 .… 24.22 Permanent Custodians Ltd v McLanders [2013] NSWSC 627; (2013) 17 BPR 32,101 .… 9.12, 13.36 Permanent Custodians Ltd v McMahon (2013) 17 BPR 32,177 .… 9.12 Permanent Finance Corp Ltd v Flavel; Ex parte Flavel [1968] Qd R 84 .… 12.11 Permanent Houses (Holdings) Ltd, Re [1988] BCLC 563 .… 11.39 Permanent Trustee Australia Ltd v Shand (1992) 27 NSWLR 426 .… 4.27

Permanent Trustee Co Ltd v Angus (1917) 17 SR (NSW) 364 .… 11.12 Permanent Trustee Co Ltd v Cormack (1920) 21 SR (NSW) 1 .… 3.10, 3.15, 16.8 Permanent Trustee Co Ltd v University of Sydney [1983] 1 NSWLR 578 .… 24.50 Permanent Trustee Co of New South Wales Ltd v Bridgewater [1936] 3 All ER 501 .… 13.14, 13.24 Permanent Trustee Co of New South Wales Ltd v Martin (No 2) (1905) 22 WN (NSW) 76 .… 22.14, 22.25, 33.23 Perpetual Executors and Trustees Assoc of Australia Ltd v Eades (No 1) [1925] VLR82 .… 12.11 Perpetual Executors and Trustees Assoc of Australia Ltd v Eades (No 2) [1925] VLR224 .… 12.11 Perpetual Executors and Trustees Assoc of Australia Ltd v Hosken (1912) 14 CLR 286 .… 4.5 Perpetual Finance Corp Ltd v Blain (1996) 9 BPR 16,243 .… 12.18 Perpetual Ltd v Treloar (2009) 14 BPR 27,699 .… 19.2, 20.16 Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v Cowan (No 2) (1920) 21 LR (NSW) Eq 278 .… 20.4 Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v Gregg (1914) 14 SR (NSW) 266 .… 32.81 Perpetual Trustees Co Ltd, Re; Application of Chen [2010] NSWSC 808; (2010) 15 BPR 28,845 .… 4.25, 10.12 Perpetual Trustees Estate and Agency Co of New Zealand Ltd v Elworthy [1926] NZLR 621 .… 4.30 Perpetual Trustees Estate and Agency Co of New Zealand Ltd v Morrison [1980] 2 NZLR 447 .… 17.11, 32.65 Perpetual Trustees Victoria Limited v English [2010] NSWCA 32; 14 BPR 27,339 .… 4.17 Perpetual Trustees Victoria Limited v Menzies [2012] NSWSC 1066; 16 BPR 31,541 .… 4.17

Perpetual Trustees Victoria Limited v Tsai (2004) 12 BPR 22,281 .… 17.3 Perry v Barker (1806) 13 Ves 198; 33 ER 269 .… 16.7, 22.38 Perry v Holl (1860) 2 Giff 138; 66 ER 59 .… 11.7 Perry v Keane; Perry v Partridge (1836) 6 LJ Ch 67 .… 21.9 Perry v Meddowcroft (1841) 4 Beav 197; 49 ER 314 .… 1.27 Perry v National Provincial Bank of England [1910] 1 Ch 464 .… 35.8, 35.9 Perry v Rolfe [1948] VLR 297 .… 4.8, 19.7, 32.1, 33.1, 33.20, 39.15, 40.1 Perry v Walker (1855) 24 LJ Ch 319 .… 19.37 Perry-Herrick v Attwood (1857) 2 De G & J21; 44 ER 895 .… 24.41, 24.47 Person to Person Financial Services Pty Ltd v Sharari [1984] 1 NSWLR 475 .… 4.27, 28.15 Perth Brewery Co Ltd v Simms (1903) 5 WALR 24 .… 32.12 Peruss Pty Ltd, Re (1980) 5 ACLR 176 .… 8.24 Petelin v Cullen (1975) 132 CLR 355 .… 13.40 Peter v Russell (1716) 1 Eq Cas Abr 321; 21 ER 1075 .… 24.36, 24.43 Peters v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) NSW ConvR 55-629 .… 13.17, 13.18, 13.27 Peters v Thornton (1868) 7 SCR (NSW) (L) 298 .… 20.3 Peto v Hammond (1860) 29 Beav 91; 54 ER 560 .… 22.11, 33.3 Peto v Hammond (1861) 30 Beav 495; 54 ER 981 .… 22.27 Petranick v Dale (1973) 33 DLR (3d) 389 .… 21.4, 22.42 Petrol Filling Station, Vauxhall Bridge Road, London, Re; Rosemex Service Station v Shell Mex and BP (1968) 20 P & CR 1 .… 32.9, 32.11, 32.12 Pettat v Ellis (1804) 9 Ves 563; 32 ER 721 .… 1.51, 39.61 Pettit v Pettit [1970] AC 777 .… 2.18 Petty v Styward (1631) 1 Eq Cas Abr 290; 21 ER 1052 .… 32.50 Petty v Styword (1631) 1 Rep Ch 57; 21 ER 506 .… 11.31

Peyman v Lanjani [1985] Ch 457; [1984] 3 All ER 703 .… 13.2 Philippa Power & Associates v Primrose Couper Cronin Rudkin [1997] 2 Qd R266 .… 2.48 Philips v Davies (1843) 7 Jur 52 .… 40.13 Phillips, Re (1869) 4 Ch App 629 .… 40.28 Phillips, Re; Ex parte Bath (1882) 22 Ch D 450; (1884) 27 Ch D 509 .… 23.10 Phillips, Re; Ex parte National Mercantile Bank (1880) 16 Ch D 104 .… 39.16 Phillips v Hogg [2001] QSC 390 .… 2.8, 21.12, 21.21 Phillips v Hutchinson [1946] VLR 270 .… 13.18 Phillips v Phillips (1862) 4 De GF & J 208; 45 ER 1164 .… 24.25, 24.28, 24.34 Phillips v Vaughan (1685) 1 Vern 336; 23 ER 504 .… 39.19 Phillips’ Trusts, Re [1903] 1 Ch 183 .… 26.16 Phillips-Higgins v Harper [1954] 1 QB 411; [1954] 2 All ER 51n .… 16.36 Philos Pty Ltd v National Bank of Australasia Ltd (1976) 5 BPR 11,810 .… 4.34, 25.12, 25.14, 25.15, 25.16 Philpott v NZI Bank Ltd (1990) ANZ ConvR 242 .… 1.33 Phipps v Earl of Anglesea (1721) 5 Vin Abr 209 .… 32.44 Phipps v Lovegrove (1873) LR 16 Eq 80 .… 24.6, 26.15, 26.18, 26.20, 26.22 Piazza Grande Pty Ltd v Portis Pty Ltd (1993) V ConvR 54-460 .… 19.2 Piccolo, Re; McVeigh v National Australia Bank Ltd [2000] FCA 187 .… 3.7, 3.8, 3.9 Pickard v Sears (1837) 6 A & E 469; 112 ER 179 .… 24.46 Pickering v Ilfracombe Rly Co (1868) LR 3 CP 235 .… 24.50 Pickering v Wells [2002] FLR 798 (UK) .… 7.5 Pico Holdings Inc v Turf Club Australia Pty Ltd[2002] QSC 86 .… 11.34

Pico Holdings Inc v Wave Vista Pty Ltd [2003] QCA 204 .… 11.34 Pico Holdings Ltd v Wave Vistas Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 13; 79 ALJR 825; 214 ALR 392 .… 1.33 Pidcock, Re; Penny v Pidcock (1807) 51 Sol Jo 514 .… 3.41 Piddock v Brown (1734) 3 P Wms 288; 24 ER 1069 .… 39.11 Pierce, Ex parte (1925) 42 WN (NSW) 23 .… 7.7 Pierce v Canada Permanent Loan and Savings Co (1894) 25 OR 671 .… 25.8 Piggott v Williams (1821) 6 Madd 95; 56 ER 1027 .… 1.48 Pigot v Cubley (1864) 15 CB (NS) 701; 143 ER 960 .… 1.11 Pigot’s case (1614) 11 Co Rep 266; 77 ER 1177; [1558–1774] All ER Rep 50 .… 3.33 Pilcher v Rawlins (1872) LR 7 Ch App 259 .… 24.5, 24.6, 24.12, 25.4 Pile v Pile (1875) 23 WR 440 .… 25.6 Pile’s Caveat, Re [1980] Qd R 81 .… 4.28 Pilkington v Wood [1953] Ch 770 .… 3.11 Pinchard v Fellows (1874) LR 17 Eq 421 .… 21.16 Pincus v Ord Minnett Ltd (SC (Vic), Hedigan J, 5 May 1994, unreported) .… 6.7, 6.9, 6.11 Pinhorn v Souster (1853) 8 Exch 763; 1 WR 336 .… 12.10 Pinnock v Bailey (1883) 23 Ch D 497 .… 6.14, 26.23 Pinnock v Harrison (1838) 3 M & W 532; 150 ER 1256 .… 2.49 Pioneer Container (The) [1994] 2 AC 324; [1994] 2 All ER 250 .… 2.20 Pioneer Quarries (Sydney) Pty Ltd v Permanent Trustee Co of NSW (1970) 2 BPR 9562 .… 37.9 Pipeline Properties Pty Ltd v Leichhardt Development Co Pty Ltd (1989) 58 NTR 17 .… 7.10 Piromalli, In the Application of [1977] 1 NSWR 39 .… 32.39, 38.7 Pirpiris v Iovanella [1975] VR 129 .… 24.51

Pit v Cholmondeley (1754) 2 Ves Sen 565; 28 ER 360 .… 39.3 Pitt v Pitt (1856) 22 Beav 294; 52 ER 1121 .… 36.6 Pitt Ltd v Glenelg Corp [1927] SASR 501 .… 7.10 Pitt Street Pty Ltd v McGurk [2004] NSWSC 413 .… 4.26 Pittortou, Re [1985] 1 All ER 285; [1985] 1 WLR 58 .… 30.7 Place v Fagg (1829) 4 Man & Ry KB 277 .… 1.22 Planwest Consultants Ltd v Milltimber Holdings Ltd (1995) 10 PPSAC (2d) 116 .… 5.25 Platt v Mendel (1884) 27 Ch D 246 .… 21.4, 22.2, 22.15, 22.25, 22.26, 22.28 Platt v Platt (1976) 120 Sol Jo 199 .… 7.4 Platzer v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1997] 1 Qd R 266 .… 28.7, 28.15 Pledge v Buss (1860) John 663; 70 ER 585 .… 42.13, 42.15 Pledge v White [1896] AC 187 .… 31.6, 31.8 Plomley v Felton (1888) 14 App Cas 61 .… 32.31 Plumb v Fluitt (1791) 2 Anst 432; 145 ER 926 .… 24.9, 24.14 Plumbe v Plumbe (1841) 4 Y & C Ex 345; 160 ER 1039 .… 33.13 Plumpton v Plumpton (1886) 11 VLR 733 .… 4.24 Plumtre v O’Dell (1838) 1 Ir Eq R 113 .… 2.41 Plunketts Ltd v Harrods Ltd (in liquidation) (1942) 44 WALR 1 .… 5.43 Pocock v Lee (1707) 2 Vern 604; 23 ER 995 .… 30.7 Pocock v Reddington (1801) 5 Ves 794; 31 ER 862 .… 11.14 Polak v Everett (1876) 1 QBD 669 .… 35.8 Pollen v Brewer (1859) 7 CB (NS) 371; 141 ER 860 .… 19.19 Pollitt, Re; Ex parte Minor [1893] 1 QB 455 .… 2.40 Polly Peck International plc v Nadir (No 2) [1992] 4 All ER 769 .… 24.20

Pongetti v Bankers Trust 368 So (2d) 819 (1979) (Miss) .… 3.8 Pont Data Australia Ltd v ASX Operations Pty Ltd (1990) 93 ALR 523 .… 13.46 Poole Corporation v Moody [1945] 1 KB 350; [1945] 1 All ER 536 .… 16.28 Pooley v Driver (1876) 5 Ch D 458 .… 6.22 Pooley Hall Colliery Co, Re (1869) 18 WR 201;(1869) 21 LT 690 .… 11.9, 11.33 Pooley’s Trustee v Whetham (1886) 33 Ch D 111 .… 42.3 Poosathurdi v Kanappa Chettiar (1919) LR 47 Ind App 1 .… 13.21 Pope v Biggs (1829) 9 B & C 245; 109 ER 91 .… 19.12 Popple v Sylvest (1882) 22 Ch D 98 .… 36.14 Popular Homes Ltd v Circuit Developments Ltd [1979] 2 NZLR 642 .… 1.41, 1.51, 1.48, 6.8, 15.2 Port Line Ltd v Ben Line Steamers Ltd [1958] 2 QB 146; [1958] 1 All ER 787 .… 16.14 Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (No 2) (1981) 147 CLR 589 . … 16.7, 17.12 Portbase Clothing Ltd, Re [1993] 3 All ER 829 .… 24.3 Porter v Associated Securities Ltd (1976) 1 BPR9279 .… 20.18, 30.13, 32.25, 32.71 Porter, Re [1892] 3 Ch 481 .… 13.52 Porter v Moore [1904] 2 Ch 367 .… 26.16 Portland Holdings Ltd v Cameo Motors Ltd[1966] NZLR 571 .… 13.46 Portman Building Society v Dusangh [2000] 2 All ER (Comm) 221 (CA) .… 13.12 Portman Building Society v Gallway [1955] 1 All ER 227; [1955] 1 WLR 96 .… 18.14 Portman Building Society v Hamlyn Taylor Neck [1998] 4 All ER 202 .…

39.10 Postle v Sengstock [1994] 2 Qd R 290 .… 1.7, 1.11 Postle, Re; Ex parte Bignold (1834) 4 Deac& Ch 259 .… 3.36, 19.14, 39.15 Postlethwaite v Tavers [1871] WN 173 .… 22.47 Potter v Edwards (1857) 26 LJ Ch 468 .… 13.14, 32.15 Potters Oils Ltd (No 2), Re [1986] 1 All ER 890; [1986] 1 WLR 201 .… 18.6, 18.15 Potts, Re; Ex parte Taylor [1893] 1 QB 648 .… 7.11 Potts v Miller (1940) 64 CLR 282 .… 39.7 Powell v Brodhurst [1901] 2 Ch 160 .… 32.50, 33.18 Powell v Brown (1907) 97 LT 854 .… 14.1 Powell v Glover (1721) 3 P Wms 251n; 24 ER 1050 .… 39.19 Powell v London and Provincial Bank [1893] 2 Ch 555 .… 6.17, 24.6 Powell v Powell [1900] 1 Ch 243 .… 13.24 Powell v Roberts (1869) LR 9 Eq 169 .… 21.15, 33.10 Power and Carton’s Contrac, Re (1890) 25 LR Ir 459 .… 22.35 Powers, Re; Lindsell v Phillips (1885) 30 Ch D 291 .… 16.28, 16.34, 16.35 Powney v Blomberg (1844) 14 Sim 179; 60 ER 325; 8 Jur 746 .… 16.40, 32.46 Powys v Brown (1924) 25 SR (NSW) 65 .… 42.6 Prackert, Ex parte [1987] 2 Qd R 560 .… 32.39, 38.7, 40.3 Practice Direction [1955] 1 All ER 30; [1955] 1 WLR 36 .… 22.15, 22.25 Practice Direction [1969] 2 All ER 639; [1969] 1 WLR 974 .… 22.13 Praed v Gardiner (1788) 2 Cox Eq Cas 86; 30 ER 40 .… 42.14 Pratt v Vizard (1833) 5 B & Ad 808; 110 ER 989 .… 2.41 Pratt & Whitney Canada Leasing Inc v Ellis Air Inc (2002) 6 PPSAC (3d) 84; 3 CBR (5th) 81 .… 5.94, 5.95

Predeth v Castle Phillips Finance Co Ltd [1986] 2 EGLR 144; (1986) 279 Estates Gazette 1355 .… 20.23, 20.28, 20.35 Prees v Coke (1871) LR 6 Ch App 645 .… 22.37, 22.46 Premier Building Society, Re (1890) 16 VLR 643 .… 11.35 Premier Group Ltd v Lidgard [1970] NZLR 280 .… 1.28 Premier Group Pty Ltd v Follow mount Transport Pty Ltd (SC (Qld), Williams J, 19 March 1998, unreported) .… 2.20 Prenn v Simmonds [1971] 1 WLR 1381; [1971] 3 All ER 237 .… 1.25, 3.6, 3.7 Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust v Scots Church Development Ltd [2007] NSWSC 676; 13 BPR 24,969; 64 ACSR 31 .… 4.12 President of India v La Pintada Cia Navigacion SA [1985] AC 104; [1984] 2 All ER 773 .… 39.42 Press v Coke (1871) 6 Ch App 645 .… 39.41 Preston v Tonbridge Wells Opera House Ltd[1893] 2 Ch 323 .… 18.21 Price, Re (1931) 26 Tas LR 158 .… 1.9, 1.37 Price, Re; Ex parte Pearse & Prothero (1820) Buck 525 .… 3.38 Price v Carver (1837) 3 My & Cr 157; 40 ER 884 .… 22.25 Price v Great Western Rly Co (1847) 16 M & W 244; 153 ER 1179 .… 39.43 Price v Moulton (1851) 10 CB 561; 138 ER 222 .… 17.4, 36.13 Prideaux v DPP (Cic) (1987) 163 CLR 483 .… 19.19, 19.20 Prior Bros, Re 29 Wash App 905 (1981) .… 5.87 Prioris Pty Ltd v Inscorp Ltd (SC, NSW, 4 February 1994) .… 18.11 Pritchard v Briggs [1980] Ch 338 .… 24.12 Proctor v Oates (1740) 2 Atk 140; 26 ER 488 .… 33.24 Proctor Endowment and Annuity Loan Co v Grice (1880) 5 QBD 592 .… 3.15

Progress & Properties (Strathfield) Pty Ltd v Crumblin (1984) 3 BPR 9496 . … 1.32 Progressive Mailing House Pty Ltd v Tabali Pty Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 17 .… 37.8 Project Research Pty Ltd v Permanent Trustee of Australia Ltd (1990) 5 BPR 11225 .… 32.40, 33.1, 33.21, 40.1, 40.11 Property and Bloodstock Ltd v Emerton [1968] Ch 94; [1967] 3 All ER 321 . … 20.6, 20.8, 20.36, 20.37, 32.55 Property Builders Pty Ltd v Adelaide Bank Ltd [2011] NSWCA 266; 15 BPR 29,411 .… 14.5 Prosser v Rice (1859) 28 Beav 68; 54 ER 291 .… 25.4 Protean Enterprises (Newmarket) Pty Ltd v Randall [1975] VR 327 .… 2.22 Protector Endowment and Annuity Loan Co v Grice (1880) 5 QBD 592 .… 1.30, 3.15, 32.15 Provident Building Society v Greenhill (1878) 9 Ch D 122 .… 11.45, 32.32, 39.10 Provident Clerks’ Mutual, etc Association v Lewis (1892) 62 LJ Ch 89 .… 21.21 Province of Alberta Treasury Branches v Faja Bison Ranch Inc (1994) 6 PPSAC (2d) 205; 152 AR 112 .… 5.39 Pryce v Bury (1853) 2 Drew 41; 61 ER 633 .… 3.42, 21.3, 21.11, 22.18, 40.30 Pryce v Bury (1854) LR 16 Eq 153(n) .… 21.9, 21.18 Prytherch, Re; Prytherch v Williams (1889) 42 Ch D 590 .… 18.19, 18.21, 19.34 PT Ltd v Maradona Pty Ltd (1992) 25 NSWLR 643 .… 4.11, 4.13, 11.21, 13.40, 14.5 PT Ltd v Maradona Pty Ltd (1992) 27 NSWLR 241 .… 5.4 Public Service Employees Credit Union Co-operative v Campion (1984) 56 ACTR 39 .… 13.23

Public Trustee v Lawrence [1912] 1 Ch 789 .… 12.24 Public Trustee v Mortleman [1928] NZLR 337 .… 3.34, 4.30 Public Trustee v Pfeiffle [1991] 1 VR 19 .… 11.4 Public Works Commissioners v Harby (1857) 23 Beav 508; 53 ER 199 .… 26.22 Puddephatt v Leith [1916] 1 Ch 200 .… 6.16 Pugh v Heath (1882) 7 App Cas 235 .… 12.5, 16.4, 19.13 Pullen v Abalcheck Pty Ltd (1990) 20 NSWLR 732 .… 2.5, 8.18 Pumford v W Butler & Co Ltd [1914] 2 Ch 353 .… 12.24 Pumfrey, Re (1882) 22 Ch D 255 .… 2.18 Punnett, Ex parte; Re Kitchin (1880) 16 Ch D226 .… 12.11 Puntoriero, Re (1991) 104 ALR 523 .… 5.72 Purley Automobile Co v Aldon Motors (1968) 112 Sol Jo 482 .… 37.11 Purnell v Roche [1927] 2 Ch 142 .… 16.31 Putz v Registrar of Titles [1928] VR 348 .… 4.5 Pyke v Peters [1943] KB 242 .… 32.61 Pyramid Building Society (in liq) v Chen [1999] FCA 58 .… 14.5 Pyramid Building Society (in liq) v Rick Nominees Pty Ltd (SC (Vic), Byrne J, 23 42.2, 42.5 Pyramid Building Society (in liq) v Scorpion Hotels Pty Ltd (1996) 136 ALR 166 .… 4.11, 4.18, 11.33, 11.34 Pyramid Building Society (in liq) v Scorpion Hotels Pty Ltd [1998] 1 VR 188 .… 25.7 Q Quadramain Pty Ltd v Sevastapol Investments Pty Ltd (1976) 133 CLR 390 . … 32.9 Quarles v Knight (1820) 8 Price 630; 146 ER 1318 .… 22.31

Quarrell v Beckford (1816) 1 Madd 260; 56 ER 100 .… 1.7, 3.13, 10.12, 33.12, 39.45, 39.57 Queensland Brewery Ltd v Baker [1936] St R Qd 98 .… 32.12 Queensland Land & Coal Co, Re; Davis v Martin [1894] 3 Ch 181 .… 8.2, 11.8 Queensland Mercantile and Agency Co, Re; Ex parte Australasian Investment Co; Ex parte Union Bank of Australia [1892] 1 Ch 219 .… 26.9 Queensland Mushrooms Pty Ltd v Willemse Family Co Pty Ltd [2002] QSC 76 .… 2.33, 2.36 Queensland Trustees Ltd v Registrar of Titles (1893) 5 QLJ 46 .… 25.8 Quennell v Maltby [1979] 1 All ER 568; [1979] 1 WLR 318 .… 12.17, 16.10, 16.12, 19.13, 19.16, 20.21 Quint v Robertson (1985) 3 NSWLR 398 .… 4.7, 7.5, 24.50, 32.1, 32.80, 39.15 Quzag v Gunning Shire Council (2005) 142 LGERA 77; [2005] NSWSC 970 .… 20.21 R R & I Bank of Western Australia Ltd v Cash Resources Australia Pty Ltd (1993) 11 WAR 536 .… 25.7, 25.8, 25.12, 25.16 R v Bolger (1989) 41 A Crim R 222 .… 37.14 R v Curr [1968] 2 QB 944; [1967] 1 All ER 478 .… 13.49 R v De la Motte (1857) 2 H & N 589 .… 22.45 R v Galek (1993) 70 A Crim R 252 .… 37.14 R v Ghadami [1997] Crim LR 606 .… 37.14 R v Mountford [1972] 1 QB 28 .… 19.19 R v New Queensland Copper Co Ltd (1917) 23 CLR 495 .… 3.13, 11.15 R v Panel on Take-overs & Mergers; Ex parte Datafin plc [1987] 1 QB 815; [1987] 1 All ER 564 .… 9.5

R v Registrar General; Ex parte Roxburgh (1868) 1 QSCR 201 .… 4.5 R v Registrar of Companies [1912] 3 KB 23 .… 11.40 R v Registrar of Companies (ACT); Ex parte Ganke (1960) 1 FLR 109 .… 11.40 R v Registrar of Titles; Ex parte Watson [1952] VLR 470 .… 4.25, 20.40, 20.49 R v Robinson [1971] 1 QB 156 .… 19.19 R v Roget (1992) 7 WAR 356 .… 3.36 R v Sankey (1836) 5 A & E 423; 111 ER 1226 .… 2.36 R v Smyth (1832) 5 Car & P 201; 172 ER 939 .… 19.20 R v South Devon Rail Co (1850) 15 QB 1043; 117 ER 754 .… 2.22 R v Waugh (1935) 52 WN (NSW) 20 .… 19.19 R v Williams [1942] AC 541 .… 16.17 R A Price Securities Ltd v Henderson [1989] 2 NZLR 257 .… 18.5 R W Miller & Co Pty Ltd v The Ship Patris [1975] 1 NSWLR 704 .… 39.49 Rabobank New Zealand Ltd v McAnulty [2011] NZCA 212; 3 NZLR 192 . … 5.24, 5.25, 5.30 Radcliff v Salmon (1852) 4 De G & Sm 526; 64 ER 942 .… 22.27 Radcliffe, Re; Radcliffe v Bewes [1892] 1 Ch 227 .… 36.2 Radin v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1998] ACL 295 FC 1 .… 36.2, 36.17 Radin v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1998] FCA 1361 .… 3.9 Radin v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1999] FCA 748 .… 4.34 Rafferty v Time 2000 West Pty Ltd (No 3) (2009) 257 ALR 503 .… 2.35 Raggett, Re; Ex parte Williams (1880) 16 Ch D 117 .… 31.4, 31.5, 31.7 Raitt v Mitchell (1815) 4 Camp 146; 171 ER 47 .… 2.21 Raja v Austin Gray (a firm) [2002] EWCA Civ 1965; [2003] 1 EGLR 91; 3 EGLR 49 .… 20.21

Raja v Lloyds TSB Bank (16 May 2000) Times Law Reports 379 .… 20.21 Raja v Lloyd’s TSB Bank plc [2001] EWCA Civ 210; (2001) 82 P & CR 191 .… 16.19 Rajah Kishendatt Ram v Ralah Mumtaz AliKhan (1879) LR 6 Ind App 145 . … 20.43, 39.2 Rakestraw v Brewer (1729) 2 P Wms 511; 24 ER 839 .… 3.29 Raleigh Industries of America Inc v Tassone (1977) 74 Cal App 3d 692 .… 5.43 Ramsbottom v Wallis (1835) 5 LJ Ch 92 .… 16.6, 33.3, 33.19 Ramsden v Dyson (1866) LR 1 HL 129 .… 2.17, 2.18 Ramsden v Lanaley (1705) 2 Vern 536; 23 ER 947 .… 40.23 Ramsey v Hartley [1977] 2 All ER 673; [1977] 1 WLR 686 .… 6.5, 6.10, 6.11 Ramsay v Margrett [1894] 2 QB 18 .… 5.43 Rancliffe v Parkyns (1818) 6 Dow 149; 3 ER 1428 .… 30.10 Rand v Cartwright (1664) 1 Ch Cas 59; 22 ER 694 .… 21.13 Randall v Lithgow (1884) 12 QBD 525 .… 6.15 Ranson v Ranson [1988] 1 WLR 183 .… 13.49 Rapid Road Transit Co Ltd, Re [1909] 1 Ch 96 .… 2.36, 2.39, 2.47 Rapid Transit Mix Ltd v Commcorp Financial Services Inc (1998) 156 DLR (4th) 366 .… 5.137 Ratcliffe v Barnard (1871) LR 6 Ch App 652 .… 24.37, 24.39 Ratford v Northavon District Council [1987] QB 357; [1986] 3 All ER 193 . … 18.5 Rath v M’Mullan [1916] 1 Ir R 349 .… 2.40 Rawcliffe v Custom Credit Corporation Ltd [1994] ATPR 41-922 .… 20.38 Rawson v Eicke (1837) 7 Ad & El 451; 112 ER 539 .… 12.14 Rawson v Samuel (1839) Cr & Ph 161; 41 ER 451 .… 19.24

Read v Brown (1888) 22 QBD 128 .… 6.4, 7.2, 6.8 Read v Dupper (1795) 6 TR 361; 101 ER 595 .… 2.49, 2.51 Read v Eley (1899) 80 LT 369 .… 20.48 Read v Ward (1739) 7 Vin Abr 123 .… 24.19 Reardon Smith Line v Hansen-Targen [1976] 1 WLR 989; [1976] 3 All ER 570 .… 3.7 Reay, Re; Ex parte Barnett (1845) De G 194 .… 26.7 Redglove Projects Pty Ltd v Ngunnawal Local Aboriginal Land Council (2004) 12 BPR 22,319 .… 2.3 Redgrave v Redgrave (1951) 82 CLR 521 .… 1.4 Redman v Permanent Trustee of NSW Ltd (1916) 22 CLR 84 .… 14.2 Redmayne v Forster (1866) LR 2 Eq 467 .… 21.3, 21.9, 22.5 Reed v Norris (1837) 2 My & Cr 361; 40 ER 678 .… 39.19 Rees v Metropolitan Board of Works (1880) 14 Ch D 372 .… 40.27 Reeve v Lisle [1902] AC 461 .… 13.10, 32.14, 32.18 Reeve v Whitmore (1863) 4 De GJ & Sm 1; 46 ER 814 .… 8.12, 15.2 Reeves v Barlow (1884) 12 QBD 436 .… 6.21 Reeves v Pope [1914] 2 KB 284 .… 1.51, 6.8, 12.13, 19.30 Refuge Assurance Co Ltd v Pearlberg [1938] Ch 687; [1938] 3 All ER 231 . … 16.7, 18.7, 19.21, 19.34 Regent Oil Co Ltd v J A Gregory (HatchEnd) Ltd [1966] Ch 402 .… 3.23, 12.11, 19.10 Regent’s Canal Ironwork Co, Re; Ex parte Grissell (1875) 3 Ch D 411 .… 2.52, 11.35, 40.19 Registrar of Titles v Paterson (1876) 2 App Cas 110 .… 24.51 Reid v Explosives Co (1887) 19 QBD 264 .… 19.31 Reid v Fitzgerald (1926) 41 WN (NSW) 25 .… 3.20

Reid v Kearney (1887) 8 LR (NSW) (Eq) 37 .… 27.11 Reis, Re; Ex parte Clough [1904] 2 KB 769 .… 13.7 Reliance Finance Corp Pty Ltd v Heid [1982] 1 NSWLR 466 .… 2.11, 2.13 Reliance Finance Corp Pty Ltd v Orwin (1964) 154 CLR 326; 82 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 11 .… 2.11, 4.36, 10.8, 19.23 Reliance Finance Corp Pty Ltd v Orwin [1964–65] NSWR 970 .… 19.5 Reliance Permanent Building Society v Harwood-Stamper [1944] Ch 362; [1944] 2 All ER 75 .… 20.23 Relwood Pty Ltd v Manning Homes Pty Ltd (No 2) [1992] 2 Qd R 197 .… 7.14, 8.19, 8.21 Remer v Stokes (1856) 4 WR 730 .… 22.4 Renard Constructions (M E) Pty Ltd v Minister for Public Works (1992) 26 NSWLR 234 .… 3.10, 5.121, 16.8 Rendell v Associated Finance Pty Ltd [1957] VR 604 .… 5.94 Rendell v Morphew (1914) 84 LJ Ch 517 .… 17.5 Renshaw v Moore (1917) 34 WN (NSW) 95 .… 4.29 Renton, Re; Ex parte Glendinning (1819) Buck 517 .… 35.8, 35.10 Renvoize v Cooper (1823) 1 Sim & St 364; 57 ER 146 .… 22.32 Republic of Guatemala v Nunez [1927] 1 KB 669; (1926) 42 TLR 625 .… 26.9 Resich v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1998) ANZ ConvR 628 .… 13.36 Residential Housing Corporation v Esber (2011) 80 NSWLR 69 .… 4.4, 4.37, 20.43, 20.45 Retail Equity Pty Ltd v Custom Credit Corp Ltd(1991) 4 ACSR 23 .… 16.8 Reuthlinger v MacDonald [1976] 1 NSWLR 88 .… 13.50 Reynolds v Aluma-Lite Products Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 379 .… 19.41 Reynolds v Ashby & Son [1904] AC 466 .… 1.20, 3.26

Reynolds Bros (Motors) Pty Ltd v Esanda (1983) 8 ACLR 422 .… 5.104, 8.16 Reynoldson v Perkins (1769) Amb 564; 27 ER 362 .… 22.51 RGP Constructions Pty Ltd, Re (1982) 7 ACLR 233 .… 7.10 Rhodes v Allied Dunbar Pension Services Ltd [1989] 1 All ER 1161; [1989] 1 WLR 800 .… 8.19, 12.2, 12.13, 18.5 Rhodes v Bate (1865) LR 1 Ch App 252 .… 13.24, 42.2 Rhodes v Buckland (1852) 16 Beav 212; 51 ER 759 .… 20.36, 32.25 Rhodes v Dalby [1971] 2 All ER 1144; [1971] 1 WLR 1325 .… 12.23, 12.24, 12.26 Rhodes v Moules [1895] 1 Ch 236 .… 24.23, 42.8 Rhyl UDC v Rhyl Amusements [1959] 1 All ER 257 .… 12.30 Rhymney Valley District Council v Pontygwindy Housing Association Ltd [1976] LS Gaz R 405 .… 21.21, 21.22 Riccard v Prichard (1855) 1 K & J 277; 69 ER 462 .… 6.12 Rice v Rice (1853) 2 Drew 73; 61 ER 646 .… 24.25, 24.28, 24.45, 24.46, 28.10, 28.11, 28.14 Richard Smith & Co Ltd, Re [1901] 1 Ir R73 .… 6.4, 7.2 Richard West & Partners (Inverness) Ltd v Dick [1969] 2 Ch 424 .… 1.46 Richards, Re; Ex parte Astbury; Ex parte Lloyd’s Banking Co (1869) 4 Ch App 630 .… 1.22 Richards v Commercial Bank of Australia (1971) 18 FLR 95 .… 17.2, 32.9 Richards v Cooper (1842) 5 Beav 304; 49 ER 595 .… 22.5, 33.19 Richards v Jones (1865) 1 SALR (App) 167 .… 4.24 Richards v Macclesford (1841) 10 LJ Ch 329 .… 40.25 Richards v Morgan (1753) 4 Y & C Ex 570 .… 19.36 Richards v Platel (1841) Cr & Ph 79; 41 ER 419 .… 2.43 Richards, Re; Humber v Richards (1890) 45 Ch D 589 .… 26.11

Richardson, Re; Ex parte Jones (1832) 2 Cr & J 513; 149 ER 217 .… 13.1 Richardson, Re; Shillito v Hobson (1885) 30 Ch D 396 .… 6.11, 14.4, 34.6 Richardson’s Will Trusts, Re [1958] Ch 504 .… 7.4 Richerson, Re; Scales v Hoyle (No 2) [1893] 3 Ch 146 .… 33.2 Rick Cobby Haulage Pty Ltd, Re (1992) 7 ACSR 456; 10 ACLC 1251 .… 8.2 Rick Cobby Haulage Pty Ltd, Re (1992) 11 ACLC 138 .… 11.43 Rickards v Gledstanes (1861) 3 Giff 298; 66 ER 423 .… 24.8 Ricketts v Lewis (1882) 20 Ch D 745 .… 11.18 Ricketts v Ricketts [1891] WN 29 .… 22.49 Rickman, Re; Ex parte Bank of New Zealand(1890) 8 NZLR 381 .… 37.13 Rider v Jones (1843) 2 Y & CCC 329; 63 ER 145 .… 2.46 Ridge, Re; Ex parte Halifax (1842) 2 Mont D & De G 544 .… 3.37 Ridge of Brooklyn Realty Co v Offerman (1912) 134 NYS 788 .… 30.17 Ridgeways, Re (1825) Hog 309 .… 11.21 Ridgway v Kynnersley (1856) 2 Hem & M 565; 71 ER 583 .… 40.16 Ridout v Fowler [1904] 1 Ch 658 .… 2.15 Rigden v Vallier (1751) 2 Ves Sen 252; 28 ER 163 .… 11.31 Right d Jefferys v Bucknall (1831) 2 B & Ad 278; 109 ER 1146 .… 19.18 Riley v Hall (1898) 79 LT 244 .… 31.6 Rimmer v Bourke [2003] NSWSC 200 .… 32.37 Rimmer v Webster [1902] 2 Ch 163 .… 24.42, 24.46, 24, 47, 28.14 Ritson, Re; Ritson v Ritson [1899] 1 Ch 128 .… 29.4 Riverlate Properties Ltd v Paul [1975] Ch 133; [1974] 2 All ER 656 .… 13.42 Rizoto Kaihatsu Gumi Ltd v Capital and Coastal Ltd [1998] 1 ConvR 54-511 .… 2.15

RJE v Department of Justice (2008) 192 A Crim R 156 .… 5.4 RN Home v Chester Fein Property Developments Pty Ltd [1987] VR 913; 11 ACLR 245 .… 10.15 Road Chalets Pty Ltd v Thornton Motors Pty Ltd (1986) 47 SASR 532 .… 1.25, 4.5, 4.8, 40.1 Roam Australia Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd (Federal Court of Australia, Lehane J, 22 September 1997, unreported) .… 2.48, 2.50 Robarts v Jefferys (1830) 8 LJ OS Ch 137 .… 32.46 Robbie (N W) & Co Ltd v Witney Warehouse Co Ltd [1963] 3 All ER 613; [1963] 1 WLR 1324 .… 6.6, 8.19, 18.5 Robbins v Whyte [1906] 1 KB 125 .… 12.30 Robert Nettlefold Pty Ltd v Schofield (1934) 29 Tas LR 93 .… 5.43 Robert Reid & Co v Minister of Public Works (1902) 2 SR (NSW) L 405 .… 4.7, 12.2, 38.4 Roberts, Re (1889) 43 Ch D 52 .… 42.10 Roberts, Re (1982) 84 FLR 88 .… 2.7 Roberts, Re; Goodchap v Roberts (1880) 14 Ch D 49 .… 39.43 Roberts v Croft (1857) 2 De G & J 1; 44 ER 887 .… 3.38, 24.27, 24.39 Roberts v Croft (1857) 24 Beav 223; 53 ER 343 .… 3.38, 24.45 Roberts v Goldenberg (1997) ANZ ConvR 405 .… 13.36 Roberts v Holland [1893] 1 QB 665 .… 11.2, 17.3 Roberts v J Hampson & Co [1990] 1 WLR 94 .… 37.5 Roberts v Roberts [1986] 2 All ER 483; [1986] 1 WLR 437 .… 13.49 Roberts Petroleum Ltd v Bernard Kenny Ltd [1983] 2 AC 192; [1983] 1 All ER 564 .… 7.5 Robertson, Re (1907) 24 WN (NSW) 94 .… 4.28 Robertson v Grigg (1932) 47 CLR 257 .… 1.9, 5.104 Robertson v Norris (1857) 1 Giff 421; 65 ER 983 .… 19.41

Robertson v White [1923] NZLR 1275 .… 17.10 Robins v Goldingham (1872) LR 13 Eq 440 .… 2.33 Robinson v Briggs (1870–1871) LR 6 Exch 1 .… 5.43 Robinson v Burnell’s Vienna Bakery Co [1904] 2 KB 624 .… 8.19 Robinson v Campbell (No 2) (1992) 30 NSWLR 503 (CA) .… 30.2 Robinson v Cumming (1742) 2 Atk 409; 26 ER 646 .… 39.36 Robinson v Gee (1749) 1 Ves Sen 251; 27 ER 1013 .… 30.7 Robinson v Marsh [1921] 2 KB 640 .… 13.46 Robinson v M’Donnell (1818) 2 B & Ald 134; 106 ER 316 .… 13.7 Robinson v Nesbitt (1868) LR 3 CP 264 .… 24.50 Robinson v Preston (1858) 4 K & J 505; 70 ER 211 .… 11.31 Robinson v Ridley (1821) 6 Madd 2; 56 ER 988 .… 19.38 Robinson Printing Co, Ltd v Chic, Ltd [1905] 2 Ch 123 .… 18.5 Robinson’s Settlement, Re; Grant v Hobbs [1912] 1 Ch 717 .… 11.13 Robson v Smith [1895] 2 Ch 118 .… 8.2, 8.18, 8.19 Roche’s Estate, Re (1890) 25 LR Ir 271 .… 30.5, 30.6 Rockett v Moneycorp Securities Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 258 .… 20.45 Roddam v Morley (1857) 1 De G & J 1; 44 ER 622 .… 16.33 Roddy v Williams (1845) 3 Jo & Lat 1 .… 24.28 Roddy’s Estate, Re; Ex parte Fitzgerald (1861) 11 I Ch R 369 .… 30.5, 30.6, 30.9 Rodgers v Moonta Town Corporation (1981) 37 ALR 49 .… 19.24 Rodick v Gandell (1847) 10 Beav 270; 50 ER 586 .… 2.45 Rodick v Gandell (1852) 1 De GM & G 763; 42 ER 749 .… 2.3, 6.11, 6.12, 6.13, 6.14 Roger v Harrison [1893] 1 QB 161 .… 2.15 Rogers v Challis (1859) 27 Beav 175; 54 ER 68 .… 1.41, 3.45

Rogers v Grazebrook (1846) 8 QB 895; 115 ER 1111 .… 19.12 Rogers v Holloway (1843) 5 Man & G 292; 134 ER 576 .… 7.8 Rogers v Hosegood [1900] 2 Ch 388 .… 12.2 Rogers v Humphreys (1835) 4 Ad & El 299; 111 ER 799 .… 12.2, 12.4, 12.13, 12.17, 12.19, 19.30 Rogers v Resi-Statewide Corp Ltd (1991) 101 ALR 377 .… 4.18, 4.21, 36.9 Rogers v Rogers (1842) 6 Jur 497 .… 3.32 Rogers v Whiteley [1892] AC 118 .… 7.14 Rogers & Co v British and Colonial Colliery Supply Association (1898) 68 LJQB 14 .… 17.8 Rogers’ Trusts, Re (1860) 1 Drew & Sm 338; 62 ER 408 .… 39.42 Rolain, Re; Norwest Bank St Paul, NA v Bergquist (1987) 823 F 2d 198 .… 5.44 Rolfe and Bank of Australasia v Flower & Co (1865) LR 1 PC 27 .… 23.8 Rollason, Re (1887) 34 Ch D 495 .… 1.11 Rolled Steel Products (Holdings) Ltd v British Steel Corp [1986] Ch 246 .… 11.33 Romford Canal Co, Re (1883) 24 Ch D 85 .… 11.8, 39.19 Ronald Elwyn Lister Ltd v Dunlop Canada Ltd (1982) 135 DLR (3d) 1; [1982] 1 SCR 726 .… 17.9, 19.15 Ronan v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2000) 2 VR 531 . … 3.6, 3.8, 3.9, 3.14, 11.30 Rondo Building Services Pty Ltd v Casaron Pty Ltd [2003] 2 Qd R 558 .… 1.49 Rooker v Hoofstetter (1896) 26 SCR 41 (Can) .… 3.45 Rooper v Harrison (1855) 2 K & J 86; 69 ER 704 .… 25.4, 26.11 Roots v Williamson (1888) 38 Ch D 485 .… 6.17 Rosanove v O’Rourke [1987] 1 Qd R 275 .… 18.26

Rose v Page (1829) 2 Sim 471; 57 ER 864 .… 22.5, 33.19 Rose v Watson (1864) 10 HL Cas 672; 11 ER 1187 .… 2.10, 2.13, 2.15 Rosemex Service Station v Shell-Mex and BP Ltd (1969) 20 P & CR 1 .… 32.11, 32.12 Rosenbaum v Minister for Public Works (1965) 114 CLR 424 .… 38.4 Ross v Buxton (1889) Ch D 190 .… 2.49 Ross v Laughton (1813) 1 V & B 349; 35 ER 136 .… 2.34 Ross v Victorian Permanent Property Investment and Building Society (1882) 8 VR 254 .… 4.41, 20.5, 20.6, 20.21, 20.43, 21.23 Ross T Smyth & Co Ltd v TD Bailey, Son & Co [1940] 3 All ER 60 .… 35.1 Rossiter; Rossiter v Rossiter (1979) 13 Ch D 355 .… 29.3 Rother Iron Works Ltd v Canterbury Precision Engineers Ltd [1974] QB 1; [1973] 1 All ER 394 .… 6.6, 8.14, 8.19 Rottenberg v Monjack [1993] BCLC 374 .… 40.26 Roundwood Colliery Co Ltd, Re; Lee v Roundwood Colliery Co [1897] 1 Ch 373 .… 8.19 Rourke v Robinson [1911] 1 Ch 480 .… 32.41 Rouse v Bradford Banking Co Ltd [1894] AC 586 .… 17.10, 25.15, 42.14 Routestone Ltd v Minories Finance Ltd [1997] BCC 180 .… 20.23 Row v Dawson (1749) 1 Ves Sen 331; 27 ER 1064 .… 6.11, 6.14 Row Dal Constructions Pty Ltd, Re [1966] VR 249 .… 1.29, 11.41 Rowe v B & R Nominees Pty Ltd [1964] VR 477 .… 13.43 Rowe v Equity Trustees Executors & Agency Co Ltd (1895) 21 VLR 762 .… 24.49, 24.51 Rowe v May (1854) 18 Beav 613; 52 ER 241 .… 39.21 Rowe v Wood (1820) 2 Jac & W 553; 37 ER 740 .… 39.24, 39.33, 42.21 Roxburghe v Cox (1881) 17 Ch D 520 .… 6.8, 26.18 Royal Bank v 216200 Alberta Ltd (1987) 6 PPSAC 277; 51 Sask R 146 .…

5.104 Royal Bank v Tenneco Canada Inc (1990) 72 OR (2d) 60 .… 5.91 Royal Bank v Russell Food Equipment Ltd (2001) 28 CBR (4th) 111; 211 Sask R 81 .… 5.88 Royal Bank of Canada v 212600 Alberta Ltd (1983) 3 PPSAC 113 .… 5.104 Royal Bank of Canada v Banque d’Hocheloga (1914) 7 WWR 817 (Alberta) .… 4.29 Royal Bank of Canada v LVG Auctions Ltd (1984) 2 DLR (4th) 95 .… 32.40 Royal Bank of Canada v Radius Credit Union [2010] SCC 48: [2010] 3 SCR 38 .… 5.26, 5.72, 24.26 Royal Bank of Canada v Sparrow Electric Corp [1997] 1 SCR 411 .… 5.26, 5.35 Royal Bank of Pennsylvania v Selig (1994) 434 Pa Super 537 .… 5.43 Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Miller [2002] QB 255 .… 11.17 Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge [1997] 3 All ER 628 (CA) .… 42.5 Royal British Bank v Turquand (1856) 6 El & Bl 327; 119 ER 886 .… 4.18, 11.33 Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan [1995] 2 AC 387 .… 5.121 Royal London Mutual Insurance Society v Barrett [1928] Ch 411 .… 6.15 Royal Trust Co Mortgage Corp v Nudnyk Holdings Ltd (1974) 4 OR (2d) 721 .… 32.30 Roynat Inc v United Rescue Services Ltd (1982) 2 PPSAC 49 .… 5.35 Rudd & Son Ltd, Re; Fosters v Rudd (1986) 3 BCC 9855 .… 3.14, 32.6 Rudge v Richens (1873) LR 8 CP 358 .… 16.7, 16.11, 17.10, 32.55 Rufa Pty Ltd v Cross [1981] Qd R 365 .… 19.40 Rumbold v Rumbold (1796) 3 Ves 65; 30 ER 896 .… 30.4 Rumney and Smith, Re [1897] 2 Ch 351 .… 20.4 Rural Bank Ltd v Merriba Pty Ltd (2012) 16 BPR 31,217 .… 9.12

Ruscombe v Hare (1828) 6 Dow 1; 3 ER 1379 .… 30.7 Rushton (a bankrupt), Re; Ex parte National Westminster Bank Ltd v Official Receiver [1972] Ch 197; [1971] 2 All ER 937 .… 23.9 Rushton v Industrial Development Bank (1973) 34 DLR (3d) 582 .… 22.11, 22.38 Russel v Russel (1783) 1 Bro CC 269; 28 ER 1121 .… 3.36, 3.37, 3.40 Russel v Smithies (1794) 1 Anst 96; 145 ER 811 .… 19.36, 19.37 Russell v East Anglian Railway Co (1850) 3 Mac & G 104; 42 ER 201 .… 8.12 Russell Road Purchase-Moneys, Re (1871) LR 12 Eq 78 .… 25.4 Russian Commercial and Industrial Bank v British Bank for Foreign Trade Ltd [1921] 2 AC 438 .… 32.45, 33.7 Russo v Bendigo Bank Ltd [1999] 3 VR 376 .… 4.15, 4.19, 25.7 Rust v Goodale [1957] Ch 33; [1956] 3 All ER 373 .… 12.17, 12.23, 36.4 Rustic Homes Pty Ltd, Re (1988) 13 ACLR 105; 49 SASR 41 .… 20.16 Rutter v Daniel (1882) 30 WR 724; 30 WR 801 .… 1.23 Ryall v Rolle (1749) 1 Atk 165; 26 ER 107 .… 1.11 Ryall v Rowles (1750) 1 Ves Sen 348; 27 ER 1074; 9 Bli NS 337 .… 26.2 Ryan v Dries (2002) 10 BPR 19,497 .… 11.31 Ryan v O’Sullivan [1956] VLR 99 .… 3.37, 4.24, 19.11, 21.9, 21.18, 22.52 S S & D International Pty Ltd v MIG Property Services Pty Ltd [2009] VSC 225 .… 20.45 Sabine, Re (1958) 18 ABC 188 .… 4.25, 4.28 Sabah Yazgi v Permanent Custodians Ltd [2007] NSWCA 240 .… 17.3 Sachs v Ashby & Co (1903) 88 LT 393 .… 3.21, 40.23 Sackville v Smyth (1873) LR 17 Eq 153 .… 30.2

Sadd (1865) 34 Beav 650; 55 ER 786 .… 2.42 Sadler v Worley [1894] 2 Ch 170; [1891–94] All ER Rep 1209 .… 21.3, 21.11 Saffron Walden Second Benefit Building Society v Rayner (1880) 14 Ch D 406 .… 24.8, 26.1, 26.18, 26.21, 42.5 Salander-O’Reilly Galleries, LLC, Re, 475 BR 9(2012) .… 5.23 Salera v Cousens [2001] VSC 378 .… 24.23 Salmon, Re; Ex parte the Trustee [1903] 1 KB 147 .… 31.1, 31.6, 31.8 Salmon v Dean (1851) 3 Mac & G 344; 42 ER 293 .… 12.13, 14.1 Salmon v Dean (1849) 14 Jur 235 .… 12.14 Salmon v Matthews (1841) 8 M & W 827 .… 12.15 Salt v Edgar (1886) 54 LT 374 .… 22.12, 22.17, 22.49 Salt v Marquess of Northampton [1892] AC 1 .… 1.29, 6.15, 32.11, 32.73 Sam Management Services (Aust) Pty Ltd v Bank of Western Australia Ltd [2009] NSWCA 320 .… 32.16 Samuel v Jarrah Timber and Wood Paving Corp[1904] AC 323 .… 1.8, 32.9, 32.11, 32.18 Samuel v Jones (1862) 7 LT 760 .… 40.23 Samuel Allen & Sons Ltd, Re [1907] 1 Ch 575 .… 1.20 Samuel Johnson & Sons Ltd v Brock [1907] 2 Ch 533 .… 16.31 Samuel Keller (Holdings) Ltd v Martins Bank Ltd [1970] 3 All ER 950; [1971] 1 WLR 43 .… 1.48, 3.14, 19.23, 19.24, 20.46, 32.55 Samuell v Howarth (1817) 3 Mer 272; 36 ER 105 .… 35.8 Sandeman Comprimar SA v Transitos y Transportes Integrales SL [2003] EWCA Civ 113; QB 1270 .… 5.25 Sander v Twigg (1887) 13 VLR 765 .… 4.5, 24.51 Sanders v Davis (1885) 15 QBD 218 .… 1.20 Sanders v Sanders (1881) 19 Ch D 373 .… 16.31, 16.35

Sanderson v Aston (1873) LR 8 Ex 73 .… 35.7 Sanderson v Bell (1834) 2 Cr & M 304; 149 ER 776 .… 2.22 Sandes’ Trusts, Re [1920] 1 IR 342 .… 26.11 Sandford v DV Building and Constructions CoPty Ltd [1963] VR 137 .… 6.5 Sandgate Corporation Pty Ltd v Ionnou Nominees Pty Ltd (2000) 22 WAR 172 .… 4.7, 32.1 Sandon v Hooper (1843) 14 LJ Ch 120 .… 40.23 Sandon v Hooper (1843) 6 Beav 246; 49 ER 820 .… 19.36, 19.37, 19.38, 37.5, 40.23 Sands v Thompson (1883) 22 Ch D 614 .… 32.55 Sandtara Pty Ltd v Australian European Finance Corp Ltd (1990) 20 NSWLR 82 .… 40.2, 40.2 Sandwell Pty Ltd, Re (1991) 4 ACSR 478 .… 11.43 Sanguinetti v Stuckey’s Banking Co (No 2) [1986] 1 Ch 502 .… 21.4, 39.4, 39.37 Sansom v Westpac Banking Group (1996) 7 BPR 14,615 .… 11.3, 13.36, 13.44 Santen v Felix (SC (SA), Duggan J, 25 February 1993, unreported) .… 17.11 Santley v Wilde [1899] 2 Ch 474 .… 1.7, 20.17, 32.8, 32.12 Sanwa Australia Finance Ltd v Ground-Breakers Pty Ltd [1991] 2 Qd R 456; 2 ACSR 692 .… 11.43 Sanwa Australia Leasing Ltd v National Westminster Australia (1988) 4 BPR 9514 .… 3.26 Sanyo Australia Pty Ltd v Componere Information Systems [1994] NSWCA 389 .… 28.2 Sapio v Hackney (1907) 51 Sol Jo 428 .… 17.6 Sara Properties Pty Ltd, Re [1982] 2 NSWLR 277 .… 24.5 Sarge Pty Ltd v Cazihaven Homes Pty Ltd (1994) 34 NSWLR 658 .… 30.9,

30.10, 30.11, 30.17 Sass, Re; Ex parte National Provincial Bank of England [1896] 2 QB 12 .… 42.16 Saulnier (Receiver of) v Saulnier (2008) 298 DLR (4th) 193 .… 5.9 Saunders v Anglia Building Society [1971] AC 1004; [1970] 3 All ER 961 . … 13.41 Saunders v Anglia Building Society (No 2) [1971] AC 1039; [1971] 1 All ER 243 .… 40.23 Saunders v Dehew (1692) 2 Vern 271; 23 ER 775 .… 25.4 Saunders v Dunman (1878) 8 Ch D 825 .… 40.23 Saunders v Evans (1861) 8 HL Cas 721 .… 5.42 Saunders v Leslie (1814) 2 Ball & B 509 .… 35.5 Saunders v Merryweather (1865) 3 H & C 902; 159 ER 790 .… 12.20 Saunders v Milsome (1866) LR 2 Eq 573 .… 3.48, 17.4, 36.13 Savage v Thompson (1903) 29 VLR 436 .… 6.21 Savage v Union Bank of Australia Ltd (1906) 3 CLR 1170 .… 18.15 Savill v Damesh Holdings Ltd [2004] 2 NZLR 289 .… 32.37 Savin, Re (1872) LR 7 Ch App 760 .… 23.10 Sawyers v Kyte (1870) 1 VR 94 .… 2.40 Scallan v Registrar General (1988) 12 NSWLR 514 .… 4.19, 32.51 Scandinavian Pacific Bank Ltd v Burke (1991) 5 BPR 11846 .… 17.8, 20.46 Scarel v City Loan and Credit Corp Pty Ltd (1986) 4 BPR 9226 .… 3.34, 20.5 Scarfe v Morgan (1838) 4 M & W 270; 150 ER 1430 .… 32.36, 32.42 Scheibler, Re; Ex parte Holthausen (1874) LR 9 Ch App 722 .… 1.35 Scheyer, Ex parte (1888) 52 JP 183 .… 2.43 Schiffshypothekenbank zu Luebeck AG v Norman Phillip Compton, The Alexion Hope [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 60 .… 6.3, 9.16

Schmeliong v Stankovic (1984) 2 BPR 9325 .… 11.4 Scholefield v Lockwood (No 3) (1863) 32 Beav 439; 55 ER 172 .… 30.7, 39.38 Scholefield Goodman & Sons v Zyngier [1986] AC 562; [1985] 3 All ER 105 .… 30.2 Scholes v Blunt (1917) 17 SR (NSW) 36 .… 27.13 Schoole v Sall (1803) 1 Sch & Lef 176 .… 16.11, 17.10, 32.81 Schrader v Glassen (1975) ANZ ConvR 464;(1995) NSW ConvR 55-748 .… 13.36 Schroder v Hebbard [1907] VLR 107 .… 6.20 Schulz v Corwill Properties Pty Ltd (1969) 90 WN (NSW) 529 .… 4.38 Sclater v Cottam (1857) 5 WR 744 .… 40.23 Scobie v Collins [1895] 1 QB 375 .… 12.10 Scott v Colburn (1858) 26 Beav 276; 53 ER 904 .… 11.8 Scott v Lord Hastings (1858) 4 K & J 633; 70 ER 263 .… 24.50, 26.4 Scott v Nesbitt (1808) 14 Ves 438; 33 ER 589 .… 2.52, 18.15 Scott v Scott [1924] 1 IR 141 .… 24.30 Scott v Scott (1963) 109 CLR 649 .… 5.33 Scott v Tyler (1788) Dick 712; 21 ER 448 .… 11.17, 11.18 Scottish and Newcastle Breweries Ltd v Liquidator of Rathbourne Hotel Co Ltd [1970] SLT 313 .… 1.28, 3.35 Scottish Properties Pty Ltd, Re (1972) 2 ACLR 264 .… 18.10 SEAA Enterprises Pty Ltd v Figgins Holdings Pty Ltd [1998] 2 VR 90 .… 12.4, 12.7 SEAA Enterprises Pty Ltd v Figgins Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [1996] V ConvR 54-538 .… 19.21 Seager v Aston (1857) 26 LJ Ch 809 .… 16.34 Seager Hunt, Re [1906] 2 Ch 295 .… 26.23

Seagrave v Pope (1851) 1 De GM & G 783; 42 ER 756 .… 33.26 Seal v Gimson (1914) 110 LT 583 .… 3.16, 16.6 Searle v Choat (1884) 25 Ch D 723 .… 19.16 Seaton v Simpson [1870] WN 261 .… 16.13 Seaton v Twyford (1870) LR 11 Eq 591 .… 3.16, 16.6 Secure Funding Pty Ltd v Coughlin (2009) 74 NSWLR 687 .… 19.6 Secured Income Real Estate (Australia) Ltd v St Martin’s Investments Pty Ltd (1980) 144 CLR 596 .… 3.7 Security Trust Co v Royal Bank of Canada [1976] AC 503; [1976] 1 All ER 381 .… 3.5, 5.79, 6.6, 8.19, 11.39, 36.13 Seddon v North Eastern Salt Co Ltd [1905] 1 Ch 326 .… 13.40 Segard Masurel (NZ) Ltd v Nicol (2008) 10 NZCLC 264,386; [2008] NZHC 109 .… 5.18 Seidel v Kohn (1894) 20 VLR 145 .… 6.21 Seka Pty Ltd v Fabric Dyeworks (Aust) Pty Ltd (1991) 4 ACSR 455 .… 1.11, 2.3 Selangor United Rubber Estates Ltd v Cradock (No 3) [1968] 2 All ER 1073 .… 13.46 Selby v Jackson (1844) 6 Beav 192; 49 ER 799 .… 11.20 Selby v Pomfret (1861) 1 John & H 336; 70 ER 776 .… 31.5 Selby v Pomfret (1861) 3 De GF & J 595; 45 ER 1009 .… 31.1, 31.6, 31.8 Selby, Re; Ex parte Rogers (1856) 8 De GM & G 271; 44 ER 394 .… 2.4 Seligman v Prince [1895] 2 Ch 617 .… 11.8 Selkrig v Davies (1814) 2 Dow 230; 3 ER 848 .… 26.18 Sellick v Smith (1826) 11 Moore CP 459 .… 12.4 Selwyn v Garfit (1888) 38 Ch D 273 .… 20.18, 20.20, 20.37, 20.42 Senanayake v Cheng [1965] 3 All ER 296 .… 13.40

Senhouse v Earl (1752) 2 Ves Sen 450; 28 ER 287 .… 33.12 Sentance v Porter (1849) 7 Hare 426; 68 ER 176 .… 40.9 Sergeant v Nash, Field & Co [1903] 2 KB 304 .… 13.53 Service v Flatau (1900) 16 WN (NSW) 248 .… 7.8 Seton v Slade (1802) 7 Ves 265; 32 ER 108 .… 1.14, 3.18 Sevier v Greenway (1815) 19 Ves 413; 34 ER 570 .… 1.25 Sewell v Agricultural Bank of Western Australia (1930) 44 CLR 104 .… 20.22, 20.40 Sewell v Bishopp (1893) 62 LJ Ch 985 .… 40.25 Sewell v Burdick (1884) 10 App Cas 74 .… 3.55 Seymour, Re; Fielding v Seymour [1913] 1 Ch 475 .… 6.17 Shackell v Rosier (1836) 2 Bing NC 634 .… 13.46 Shackleton v Shackleton (1825) 2 Sim & St 242; 57 ER 338 .… 40.15 Shalhoub Holdings Pty Ltd v Donnelly [1992] ACL Rep 295 NSW 20 .… 18.6 Shallay Holdings Pty Ltd v Griffith Co-operative Society Ltd [1983] 1 VR 760 .… 32.44 Shallcross v Dixon (1838) 7 LJ NS Ch 180 .… 30.12 Shalsom v Russo [2003] TLR 506 .… 1.58, 42.22 Shamii v Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd [1991] BCLC 36 .… 18.6 Shanahan, Re (1941) 58 WN (NSW) 132 .… 33.1, 40.2 Shand v M J Atkinson Ltd [1966] NZLR 551 .… 2.30, 2.49 Sharp v Jackson [1899] AC 419 .… 3.41 Sharp v Rickards [1909] 1 Ch 109 .… 31.4 Sharpnell v Blake (1737) 2 Eq Ca Abr 604; 22 ER 507 .… 39.60 Sharshaw v Gibbs (1834) Kay 333; 69 ER 141 .… 39.62 Shaw, Ex parte (1816) Jac 270; 37 ER 853 .… 2.45

Shaw v Bunny (1865) 2 De G J & Sm 468; 46 ER 456 .… 20.40 Shaw v Foster (1872) LR 5 HL 321 .… 3.40 Shaw v Hudson (1879) 48 LJ Ch 689 .… 26.25 Shaw v Jeffery (1860) 13 Moo PCC 432; 15 ER 162 .… 1.27 Shaw v Neale (1858) 6 HL Cas 580; 10 ER 1422 .… 2.49 Shaw v Scottish Widows’ Fund Assurance Society (1917) 87 LJ Ch 76 .… 19.39 Shawyer v Amberday Pty Ltd (in liq) (2001) 10 BPR 18,869 .… 24.28 Shea v Moore [1894] 1 IR 158 .… 21.10, 21.18 Shears and Alder (1891) 17 VLR 316 .… 24.51 Shee v Larkin [1907] VLR 295 .… 35.7 Sheehy v Sheehy [1901] 1 IR 239 .… 13.46 Sheffield v Eden (1878) 10 Ch D 291 .… 2.36 Sheldon v Cox (1764) Ambl 624; 27 ER 404 .… 24.22 Shell Co of Australia Ltd v Zanelli [1973] 1 NSWLR 216 .… 36.2, 36.17 Shelley, Re; Ex parte Stewart (1864) 4 De GJ & Sm 543; 46 ER 1029 .… 26.12 Shelmardine v Harrop (1821) 6 Madd 39; 56 ER 1004 .… 32.82 Shepard v Jones (1882) 21 Ch D 469 .… 19.38, 39.31 Shephard, Re (1889) 43 Ch D 131 .… 7.11 Shephard v Elliot (1918) 4 Madd 254 .… 39.37 Shepherd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation(1965) 113 CLR 385 .… 6.5, 6.11, 14.7 Shepherd v Silvia (1993) NSW ConvR 55-660 .… 13.25, 13.27, 20.38 Shepherd v Titley (1742) 2 Atk 348; 26 ER 612 .… 25.4 Sherborn v Tollemache (1863) 13 CB NS 742 .… 16.12 Shercliff v Engadine Acceptance Corp Pty Ltd [1978] 1 NSWLR 729 .…

20.37 Shercliff v Engadine Acceptance Corp Pty Ltd (No 2) (1982) 3 BPR 9207 . … 3.21, 40.2, 40.4 Shields v Lozeur (1869) 34 NJL 496; 3 Am Rep 256 .… 34.3 Shillito v Biggart [1903] 1 KB 683 .… 9.25 Shipley v Marshall (1863) 14 CB(NS) 566; 143 ER 567 .… 6.20, 11.39 Shirlaw v Taylor (1991) 31 FCR 222; 102 ALR 551 .… 2.16, 2.17, 2.22, 2.52, 18.15 Shomat Pty Ltd v Rubinstein (1995) 124 FLR 285 .… 17.7 Shoobridge v Woods (1843) 8 Jur 27 .… 39.28 Shore v Shore (1847) 2 Ph 378; 41 ER 989 .… 17.5 Showa Shoji Australia Pty Ltd v Oceanic Life Ltd (1994) 34 NSWLR 548 . … 14.5, 19.40 Shropshire Union Railways and Canal Co v R (1875) LR 7 HL 496 .… 28.10, 28.16 Sibard v AGC (Advances) Ltd (1992) 6 BPR 13178 .… 39.51 Sibbles v Highfern Pty Ltd (1987) 164 CLR 214 .… 1.9, 3.25, 25.2, 25.3, 25.8, 25.12, 25.15, 32.4, 32.54 Sickel v Mosenthal (1862) 30 Beav 371; 54 ER 932 .… 1.41, 3.45 Sidmay v Wehttam Investments (1967) 61 DLR (2d) 358 .… 13.45 Sidu v Ba’li (1892) 17 Indian LR 33 (Bom) .… 1.51 Siebe Gorman & Co Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 142 .… 5.118, 6.19, 8.13, 8.14, 8.18 Silberschildt v Schiott (1814) 3 Ves & B 45; 35 ER 396 .… 22.38 Silcock v Roynon (1843) 2 Y & CCC 376; 63 ER 166 .… 33.27 Silkdale Pty Ltd v Long Leys Co Pty Ltd (1995) 7 BPR 14,414 .… 14.2, 14.5, 19, 2, 19.23, 20.9, 20.15 Silsby v Holliman [1955] Ch 552; [1955] 2 All ER 373 .… 21.21

Silven Properties Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2004] 4 All ER 484; [2004] 1 WLR 997 .… 18.5, 20.21, 28.5 Silver v R R Seeton Construction Ltd (1977) 74 DLR (3d) 212 .… 2.49 Silver and Drake v Baines [1971] 1 QB 396; [1971] 1 All ER 473 .… 32.74 Silvera v Savic (1996) 46 NSWLR 124; 9 BPR 16,881 .… 13.8 Siminot v Burlingham Associates Inc (1998) 165 Sask R 209 .… 5.39 Simmins v Shirley (1877) 6 Ch D 173 .… 19.21, 42.20 Simmons, Re; Dennison v Orman (1902) 87 LT 594 .… 36.4 Simmons v Blandy [1897] 1 Ch 19 .… 22.15, 22.37, 39.41 Simmons v Montague [1909] 1 IR 87 .… 3.38 Simons v David Benge Motors Pty Ltd [1974] VR 585 .… 4.28 Simpson, Re 4 UCC Rep Serv 243 .… 5.85 Simpson v Forrester (1973) 132 CLR 499; 47 ALJR 149 .… 9.8, 17.5, 20.40, 24.49, 24.51, 32.5 Simpson v Geoghegan [1934] WN 232; (1934) 78 Sol Jo 930 .… 32.61 Sims v Helling (1851) 21 LJ Ch 76 .… 3.29 Sims v Lowe [1988] 1 NZLR 656 .… 16.39 Sims v SPM Business Consultants Pty Ltd (2002) 43 ACSR 633 .… 5.94, 5.98 Simson v Ingham (1823) 2 B & C 65; 107 ER 307 .… 32.52, 32.53 Sinclair v Brougham [1914] AC 398 .… 11.8, 11.9 Sinclair v Elderton (1900) 21 LR (NSW) Eq 21 .… 13.11 Sinclair v Hope Investments Pty Ltd [1982] 2 NSWLR 870 .… 4.28 Sinclair v James [1894] 3 Ch 554 .… 11.6 Sinclair’s Life Policy, Re [1938] Ch 799; [1938] 3 All ER 124 .… 6.15 Sinfield v Sweet [1967] 3 All ER 479 .… 20.28, 40.4, 40.23 Singer v Williams [1921] 1 AC 41 .… 1.4

Sinnott v Bowden [1912] 1 Ch 414 .… 3.20 Sixty-Fourth Throne Pty Ltd v Macquarie Bank (1996) 130 FLR 411 .… 4.18 Skerret, Re (1868) 25 ALR 21 .… 4.5 Sketchley, Re; Ex parte Boulton (1857) 1 De G & J 163; 44 ER 685 .… 26.21 Skinner, Re; Ex parte Temple (1822) 1 Gl & J 216 .… 39.16 Skinner v Elders Ltd (1995) V ConvR 54-527 .… 32.25 Skinner v Jegola Pty Ltd (2001) 37 ACSR 106 .… 18.13 Skipton Building Society v Clayton [1993] TLR 172 .… 12.13 Skybridge Holidays Inc, Re (1998) 13 PPSAC (2d) 387 .… 5.20 Slack v Atkinson (1875) 1 VLR (E) 335 .… 12.3 Slack v Burt (1862) 1 QSCR 50 .… 20.4 Slade v Rigg (1843) 3 Hare 35; 67 ER 286 .… 21.3, 21.11, 21.5, 33.19 Small v Tomassetti [2001] NSWSC 1112; (2001) 12 BPR 22,253 .… 4.12 Smartle v Williams (1694) Comber 247; 90 ER 1163 .… 39.11 Smeathman v Bray (1851) 15 Jur 1051 .… 31.1 Smith, In the Will of [1909] VLR 91 .… 29.2 Smith, Re; Ex parte Hepburn (1884) 25 QBD 536 .… 23.15 Smith, Re; Hannington v True (1886) 33 Ch D 195 .… 30.2 Smith, Re; Lawrence v Kitson [1916] 2 Ch 206 .… 1.35, 25.3, 39.11 Smith v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1996) 7 BPR 15,069 .… 3.8 Smith v Baker (1842) 1 Y & CCC 223; 62 ER 864 .… 21.13 Smith v Bicknell (1810), cited 3 Ves & B 51n .… 32.81 Smith v Boucher (1852) 1 Sm & G 72; 65 ER 32 .… 22.48 Smith v Bridgend CBC [2000] 1 BCLC 775 .… 11.41

Smith v Chadwick (1882) 20 Ch D 27 .… 3.7 Smith v Chichester (1842) 2 Dr & War 393 .… 2.35, 2.40, 3.31, 21.15, 22.2, 22.6, 24.27, 24.40, 40.15 Smith v Davy (1884) 2 NZLR (SC) 398 .… 4.34, 36.17 Smith v Deane (1889) 10 LR (NSW) Eq 207 .… 27.10 Smith v Eggington (1874) LR 9 CP 145 .… 12.19 Smith v Everett (1792) 4 Bro CC 64; 29 ER 780 .… 6.14 Smith v Green (1844) 1 Coll 555; 63 ER 541 .… 32.25, 40.9 Smith v Jones [1954] 1 WLR 1089; [1954] 2 All ER 823 .… 24.21 Smith v Kay (1859) 7 HL Cas 750; 11 ER 299 .… 13.13 Smith v Maclure (1884) 32 WR 459 .… 1.20, 3.26 Smith v Metropolitan City Properties Ltd (1985) 277 EG 753 .… 37.10 Smith v National Trust Co [1912] 1 DLR 698 .… 4.33 Smith v Olding (1884) 25 Ch D 462 .… 22.28 Smith v Owners of the Steamship ‘Zigurds’ [1934] AC 209 .… 26.18 Smith v Pearman (1888) 36 WR 681 .… 39.41 Smith v Phillips (1837) 1 Keen 694; 48 ER 474 .… 36.4 Smith v Pilkington (1859) 1 De GF & J 120; 45 ER 304 .… 39.44 Smith v Robinson (1853) 1 Sm & G 140; 65 ER 61 .… 22.42 Smith v Smith (1815) Coop G 141; 35 ER 508 .… 40.13 Smith v Smith [1891] 3 Ch 550 .… 32.36, 32.38 Smith v Vallence (1655) 1 Rep Ch 169; 21 ER 540 .… 33.14 Smithett v Hesketh (1890) 44 Ch D 161 .… 21.21, 22.28 Smith’s Mortgage Account, Re (1861) 9 WR 799 .… 22.18 Smith’s Mortgage, Re; Harrison v Edwards [1931] 2 Ch 168 .… 20.46, 40.23 Smyth v Toms [1918] 1 IR 338 .… 30.12

Smyth’s Trust, Re [1970] ALR 919 .… 14.7 Snaith v Burridge (1812) 4 Taunt 684; 128 ER 499 .… 11.26 Snell, Re (1877) 6 Ch D 105 .… 2.42 Sneyd, Re; Ex parte Fewings (1883) 25 Ch D 338 .… 33.20, 36.14, 40.4 Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd [1967] 2 QB 786; [1967] 1 All ER 518 .… 42.22 Soar v Dalby (1852) 15 Beav 156; 51 ER 496 .… 19.21 Société Générale de Paris v Tramways Union Co (1884) 14 QBD 424 .… 6.17, 26.12 Société Générale de Paris v Walker (1885) 11 App Cas 20 .… 6.17, 26.8, 26.12 Softley, Re; Ex parte Hodgkin (1875) LR 20 Eq 746 .… 9.17, 31.6 Sogelease Australia Ltd v Boston Australia Ltd (1991) 26 NSWLR 1 .… 5.79 Solfire Pty Ltd (in liq), Re [1998] 2 Qd R92; (1998) 25 ACSR 160 .… 8.22 Solicitor, Re a (Lincoln) [1966] 3 All ER 52 .… 32.74 Solicitor-General v Mere Tini (1899) 17 NZLR 773; 2 GLR 60 .… 28.7 Solicitors Life Assurance Society v Lamb (1864) 2 De GJ & Sm 251; 46 ER 372 .… 6.15, 20.43, 20.44 Solomons v R Gertzenstein Ltd [1954] 2 QB 243; [1954] 2 All ER 625 .… 19.39 Soloway v Sheahan (1972) 21 DLR (3d) 388 .… 32.36 Somerset v Cox (1864) 33 Beav 634; 55 ER 514 .… 26.15, 26.18 Sood v Christianos [2008] NSWSC 1087; (2008) 14 BPR 26,101 .… 10.8, 21.11 Sotiropoulos v Angelides [2004] NSWSC 1184 .… 32.39, 32.51 South African Territories v Wallington [1898] AC 309 .… 1.41, 8.1 South Australia v Commonwealth (1942) 65 CLR 373 .… 5.5

South Eastern Railway Co v Jortin (1857) 6 HL Cas 425; 10 ER 1360 .… 4.25, 19.36, 20.43 South Essex Estuary & Reclamation Co, Re (1869) 4 Ch App 215 .… 2.47 South v Bloxam (1865) 2 Hem & M 357; 71 ER 541 .… 30.13 South Johnstone v Dennis (2007) 163 FCR 343 .… 18.5 South Western District Bank v Turner (1882) 31 WR 113 .… 21.15 Southern British National Trust Ltd v Pither (1937) 57 CLR 898 .… 14.2 Southern Goldfields Ltd v General Credits Ltd (1991) 4 WAR 138 .… 20.21, 20.22, 20.32, 20.33 Southern Livestock Producers Ltd, Re [1964] 1 WLR 24; [1963] 3 All ER 801 .… 2.22 Southpac Custodian Ltd v Bank of New Zealand [1993] 1 NZLR 663 .… 19.21 Southport and West Lancashire Banking Co v Thompson (1887) 37 Ch D 64 .… 1.20 Southwell v Martin (1901) 1 SR (NSW) Eq 32 .… 11.12 Southwell v Roberts (1940) 63 CLR 58 .… 19.36, 19.38, 37.5 Southwestern Loan & Discount Co v Robertson (1881) 8 QBD 17 .… 7.8 Southwestern Mineral Water Co Ltd v Ashmore [1967] 1 WLR 1110 .… 13.46 Sowman v David Samuel Trust Ltd [1978] 1 All ER 616; [1978] 1 WLR 22 . … 18.5, 20.51 Spalding v Thompson (1858) 26 Beav 637; 53 ER 1044 .… 31.7 Sparke v Minister for Works (1891) 12 LR (NSW) L 276 .… 38.4 Sparke, Re; Ex parte Cohen (1871) 7 Ch App 20 .… 23.5 Sparrow v Hardcastle (1754) 3 Atk 798; 26 ER 1256 .… 1.14 Spector v Ageda [1973] Ch 30; [1971] 3 All ER 417 .… 13.46 Spector v Applefield Properties Ltd (1968) 206 EG 537 .… 19.13

Spectrum Plus Ltd, Re [2004] Ch 337; [2004] 4 All ER 995 .… 8.13, 8.17 Spectrum Plus Ltd, Re [2005] 3 WLR 58 .… 8.13 Spellman v Spellman [1961] 2 All ER 498 .… 32.4 Spence v Roberts (1995) ASC 56-312 .… 9.3 Spencer v Bamber [2011] NSWSC 1313; [2012] NSWCA 274 .… 20.16, 22.52 Spencer v Clarke (1878) 9 Ch D 137 .… 6.9, 6.15, 24.39, 26.1 Spencer v Mason (1931) 75 Sol Jo 295 .… 19.11, 19.14 Spencer v The Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418 .… 18.13 Spencer-Bell to L & SW Rly Co (1885) 33 WR 771 .… 32.38 Spensley’s Estate, Re; Spensley v Harrison (1872) LR I5 Eq 16 .… 40.20 Sperry Inc v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (1985) 4 PPSAC 314; 17 DLR (4th) 236; 50 OR (2d) 267 .… 5.44, 5.45, 5.71, 5.72, 5.91 Spina v Conrad Associates Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 326; 13 BPR 25,435 .… 11.24 Spirett v Willows (1865) 3 De GJ & S 293; 46 ER 649 .… 13.6 Spittlehouse v Northshore Marine Inc (1994) 7 PPSAC (2d) 67; 144 DLR (4th) 500 .… 5.104 Spong v Spong (1914) 18 CLR 544 .… 13.20, 13.21 Spooner v Sandilands (1842) 1 Y & CCC 390; 62 ER 939 .… 1.34, 1.39, 1.40 Sporle v Whayman (1855) 20 Beav 607; 52 ER 738 .… 3.37, 16.2, 21.9 Spragg v Binkes (1800) 5 Ves 583; 31 ER 751 .… 21.13, 32.23 Sprague v Mayne (1930) 38 OWN 16 .… 33.3 Sproule v Prior (1826) 8 Sim 189; 59 ER 76 .… 30.10 Sprung Instant Structures v Caswan Environmental Services Inc [1998] 6 WWR 535 .… 5.1 Spurgeon v Collier (1758) 1 Eden 55; 28 ER 605 .… 32.11

Squib v Wyn (1717) 1 P Wms 378; 24 ER 432 .… 6.11 Squire v Ford (1851) 9 Hare 47; 68 ER 408 .… 36.12 Squire v Pardoe (1891) 40 WR 100 .… 31.8 St George Bank v Emery [2004] WASC 35 .… 17.7 St John v Wareham (1635), cited in Thornborough v Baker 3 Swan 628; 36 ER 1000 .… 1.27 St Kilda Road Pty Ltd v Parker Simmonds Securities Ltd (2002) V ConvR 54-652 .… 4.31 St Leger v Robson (1831) 9 LJ OS KB 184 .… 40.24 St Lucia Usines & Estates Co Ltd v Colonial Treasurer of St Lucia [1924] AC 508 .… 41.2 Stackhouse v Barnston (1805) 10 Ves 453; 32 ER 921 .… 35.1 Stackhouse v Countess of Jersey (1861) 1 J & H 721; 70 ER 933 .… 24.40, 33.3 Stackpole v Earle (1761) 2 Wils 133; 95 ER 727 .… 13.48 Staff Mortgage and Investment Corporation, Re (1977) 550 F 2d 1228 .… 5.43 Stage Club Ltd v Millers Hotels Pty Ltd (1981) 150 CLR 535 .… 16.34 Stainbank v Fenning (1851) 11 CB 51; 138 ER 389 .… 2.2 Stainbank v Shepard (1853) 13 CB 418; 138 ER 1262 .… 2.2 Stains v Rudlin (1852) 9 Hare App 53; 68 ER 788 .… 22.42 Stamford, Spalding and Boston Banking Co v Ball (1862) 4 De GF & J 310; 45 ER 1203 .… 21.3, 21.23, 22.22 Stamps Comrs v Hope [1891] AC 476 .… 36.13, 36.16 Standard Chartered Bank Ltd v Walker [1982] 3 All ER 938; [1982] 1 WLR 1410 .… 18.5, 19.36, 20.22, 20.23, 20.30, 20.33 Standard Electronic Apparatus Laboratories Pty Ltd v Stenner [1960] NSWR 447 .… 2.22, 3.55

Standard Pattern Co Ltd v Ivey [1962] Ch 432 .… 37.9 Standard Rotary Machine Co Ltd, Re (1906) 95 LT 829 .… 8.18 Stanhope v Earl Verney (1761) 2 Eden 81; 28 ER 826 .… 24.4, 25.4 Stanhope v Manners (1763) 2 Eden 197; 28 ER 873 .… 16.6, 39.55 Stanley v Auckland Co-operative Terminating Building Society [1973] 2 NZLR 673 .… 17.9 Stanley v Bond (1844) 14 LJ Ch 51 .… 7.8 Stanley v Grundy (1883) 22 Ch D 478 .… 39.26 Stannard v Ullithorne (1834) 10 Bing 491; 131 ER 985 .… 42.6 Stapleford Colliery Co, Re; Barrow’s Case (1880) 14 Ch D 432 .… 24.7 Stapleton v F T S O’Donnell, Griffin & Co (Qld) Pty Ltd (1961) 108 CLR 106 .… 7.10 Star v Silvia (No 1) (1994) 12 ACLC 600 .… 20.22 State Bank of Albany v Fioravanti 435 NYS (2d) 947; 417 NE (2d) 60 (1980) (NY) .… 3.8 State Bank of New South Wales Ltd v Hibbert (2000) 9 BPR 17,543 .… 13.29 State Bank of New South Wales v Berowra Waters Holdings Pty Ltd (1986) 4 NSWLR 398 .… 4.38, 17.11, 32.65 State Bank of New South Wales v Cadea (No 18) Pty Ltd (1995) 7 PBR 14,301 .… 34.3 State Bank of New South Wales v Chia (2000) 50 NSWLR 587 .… 17.7, 18.5, 20.21 State Bank of New South Wales v Geeport Developments Pty Ltd (1991) 5 BPR 11,947 .… 42.18 State Bank of New South Wales v Muir (1997) 8 BPR 15,483 .… 3.8, 13.35 State of Nebraska ex rel Wagner v Amwest Surety Insurance Co (2010) 280 Neb 729 .… 5.41 State of New Mexico v Woodward 100 NM 708 .… 5.94

State Rail Authority of NSW, Re [1994] ACL Rep 295 NSW 20 .… 8.1 State Rail Authority of NSW v Heath Outdoor Pty Ltd (1986) 7 NSWLR 170 .… 1.25 State Superannuation Board v Trustees Executors and Agency Co Ltd (1963) 38 ALJR 1 .… 8.4 State Street Auto Sales, Inc, Re 81 BR 215 (1988) .… 5.23 Statewide Computer Services Pty Ltd, Re [1992] 2 Qd R 647 .… 2.48 Stead v Banks (1852) 5 De G & Sm 560; 64 ER 1241 .… 22.27 Steadman v Hockley (1846) 15 M & W 553; 153 ER 969 .… 2.22, 2.26 Steadman v Steadman [1976] AC 536 .… 3.45 Steamship Boveric Co Ltd v Howard Smith & Sons Pty Ltd (1901) 27 VLR 347 .… 9.24 Steeds v Steeds (1889) 22 QBD 537 .… 11.31 Steel v Brown (1808) 1 Taunt 381; 127 ER 881 .… 13.7 Steel Wing Co Ltd, Re [1921] 1 Ch 349 .… 6.5, 6.10, 6.11, 14.7 Steele v DFCT (1999) 197 CLR 459 .… 41.3 Steele v Maunder (1844) 1 Coll 535; 63 ER 532 .… 22.9 Steen v Law [1964] AC 287 .… 13.45 Steers v Rogers [1893] AC 232 .… 19.35 Steiglitz v Egginton (1815) Holt NP 141; 171 ER 193 .… 11.27 Stein v Rand Construction Company, Inc (1975) 400 F Supp 944 .… 5.44 Stein v Saywell (1969) 121 CLR 529 .… 8.11, 8.20 Steindlberger v Mistroni (1992) 5 BPR 11529 .… 3.13, 3.15, 32.7 Stephanian’s Persian Carpets Ltd (1980) 1 PPSAC 119 .… 5.23 Stephens v Broomfield; The Great Pacific (1869) LR 2 PC 516 .… 6.14, 9.27 Stephens v Green [1895] 2 Ch 148 .… 26.14, 26.15, 26.23 Stephens v Venables (1862) 30 Beav 625; 54 ER 1032 .… 26.18

Stephenson, Re; Ex parte Stephenson (1847) De G 586 .… 30.10, 30.14 Stephenson, Re; Solomon v Trustees Executors and Agency Co of NZ Ltd [1911] NZLR 145 .… 30.4, 30.13, 30.15 Stephenson Developments Pty Ltd v Finance Corp of Australia Ltd [1976] Qd R 326 .… 20.15 Sterling; Ex parte (1809) 16 Ves 258; 33 ER 982 .… 2.33 Stern v McArthur (1988) 165 CLR 489 .… 1.25, 37.12 Sterne v Beck (1863) 1 De GJ & Sm 595; 46 ER 236 .… 1.30, 3.15 Stevens, Re; Ex parte Stevens (1834) 4 Deac & Ch 117 .… 26.1 Stevens v Hoberg [1951] QWN 44 .… 33.23 Stevens v Hoberg (No 2) [1952] QWN 13 .… 21.6, 22.55 Stevens v Hutchinson [1953] Ch 299 .… 7.11 Stevens v Mid-Hants Rly Co; London Financial Association v Stevens (1873) 8 Ch App Cas 1064 .… 36.10, 36.11 Stevens v Theatres Ltd [1903] 1 Ch 857 .… 16.7, 20.1, 20.4, 21.4, 21.7, 22.38, 22.41, 22.42 Stevens v Williams (1851) 1 Sim NS 545; 61 ER 210 .… 22.35 Stevenson v Blakelock (1813) 1 M & S 535; 105 ER 200 .… 2.36 Stevenson v Byrne (1897) 19 ALR 47; 3 ALR 198 .… 33.3 Stevenson v Byrne (1897) 3 Arg LR 198, 19 ALT 46 .… 20.17 Stevenson v Byrne (1897) 3 Arg LR 250 .… 20.17 Stewart Gill Ltd v Horatio Myer & Co Ltd [1992] QB 600 .… 6.8 Stewart v Casey [1892] 1 Ch 104 .… 6.26 Stewart v Strevens [1976] 2 NSWLR 321 .… 2.49 Steyning and Littlehampton Building Society v Wilson [1951] Ch 1018 .… 3.23 Stickney v Sewell (1835) 1 My & Cr 8; 40 ER 280 .… 11.14 Stock Co v Gibson [2012] NZCA 330; (2012) 10 NZBLC 99-709 .… 5.104

Stockl v Rigura Pty Ltd (2004) 12 BPR 23,151; [2004] NSWCA 73 .… 20.28, 20.30 Stockland (Macquarie) Pty Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1991) ACL Rep 295 Qld 9 .… 19.31 Stocks & Enterprises Pty Ltd v McBurney (1977) 1 BPR 9521 .… 1.15, 3.15, 4.7, 32.1, 32.6, 32.36 Stocks v Dobson (1853) 4 De GM & G 11; 43 ER 411 .… 6.14, 6.19 Stoddart v Union Trust Ltd [1912] 1 KB 181 .… 6.8 Stokes v Clendon (1790) 3 Swans 150n; 36 ER 812 .… 22.8, 30.7, 33.2 Stokes v Prance [1898] 1 Ch 212 .… 42.6 Stokoe v Robson (1814) 3 Ves & B 51; 35 ER 398 .… 32.81, 32.82 Stone v Farrow Mortgage Services Pty Ltd (1999) 12 BPR 22,175 .… 20.28 Stone v Lickorish [1891] 2 Ch 363 .… 40.7,42.10 Stone v Lidderdale (1795) 2 Anst 533; 145 ER 958 .… 13.49 Story v Advance Bank Australia Ltd (1993) 31 NSWLR 722 .… 4.16, 4.18 Stoyanovich v National Westminster Finance (1984) 3 BPR 9310 .… 20.24 Strachan v Brown and Visser (2000) 9 Tas R 291; [2000] TASSC 142 .… 5.4 Stramit Industries Ltd v Gardner [1970] 2 NSWR 450; 92 WN (NSW) 433 . … 35.10 Strand Music Hall Co Ltd, Re (1865) 3 De GJ & Sm 147; 46 ER 594 .… 8.2 Stratford v Twynam (1822) Jac 418; 37 ER 908 .… 20.40 Strathblaine Estates Ltd, Re [1948] Ch 228; [1948] 1 All ER 162 .… 22.18 Stratton, Re; Ex parte Salting (1883) 25 Ch D 148 .… 30.13 Stratton Industries Inc v Northwest Georgia Bank 191 Ga App 683 .… 5.94 Strickland v Symons (1884) 26 Ch D 245 .… 2.42 Stringer, Ex parte (1882) 9 QBD 436 .… 2.18

Stringer v Harper (1858) 26 Beav 33; 53 ER 808 .… 30.2 Strode v Parker (1694) 2 Vern 316; 23 ER 804 .… 3.18 Strong v Bird (1874) LR 18 Eq 315 .… 34.2 Stronge v Hawkes (1853) 4 De GM & G 186; 43 ER 478 .… 30.2 Stronge v Hawkes (1859) 4 De G & J 632; 45 ER 246 .… 30.5 Stroud Building Society v Delamont [1960] 1 All ER 749; [1960] 1 WLR 431 .… 12.17, 12.19, 12.26 Stroughill v Anstey (1852) 1 De GM & G 635; 42 ER 700 .… 11.12 Strutt v Tippett (1889) 61 LT 460; 62 LT 475 .… 2.16 Stuart, Re; Ex parte Marshall (1859) 4 De G& J 317; 45 ER 123 .… 40.28 Stuart v Cockerell (1869) LR 8 Eq 607 .… 26.27 Stuart v Worrall (1785) 1 Bro CC 581; 28 ER 1310 .… 33.24 Stubbs v Lister (1841) 1 Y & CCC 81; 62 ER 799 .… 20.40, 39.23 Stubbs v Slater [1910] 1 Ch 632 .… 20.3, 20.4, 21.1 Stucley, Re [1906] 1 Ch 67 .… 2.9, 2.10, 2.12, 2.13 Studebaker Corporation of Australasia Ltd v C of T (NSW) (1921) 29 CLR 225 .… 41.4 Stumore v Campbell [1892] 1 QB 314 .… 2.35, 2.36 Sue Dwyer Real Estate Pty Ltd v Histcote Pty Ltd (2001) 161 FLR 413 .… 18.6 Sullivan v Pearson, Re; Ex parte Morrison (1868) LR 4 QB 153 .… 2.50 Sun Hung Kai Bank Ltd v AG [1986] HKLR 587 .… 3.40 Sun North Investments Pty Ltd v Dale [2013] QSC 44 .… 32.16 Sun Tai Cheung Credits Ltd v AG (Hong Kong) [1987] 1 WLR 948 .… 3.40, 11.40 Super 1000 Pty Ltd v Pacific General Securities Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1222; 221 FLR 427 .… 4.12 Supreme Court Registrar to Alexander Dawson Inc, Re [1976] 1 NZLR 615 .

… 32.11, 32.12 Surrendra Overseas Ltd v Government of Sri Lanka [1977] 1 WLR 565 .… 16.34 Sussman v AGC Advances Ltd (1991) 5 BPR 11,822 .… 36.9 Sussman v AGC Advances Ltd (1995) 37 NSWLR 37 .… 4.12, 4.25 Sutherland Shire Council v Glendon Court Ltd(1934) 12 LGR 20 .… 7.2, 41.12 Sutherland, Re [1963] AC 235 .… 3.14 Sutherland, Re; French Caledonia Travel ServicePty Ltd (2003) 59 NSWLR 361 .… 32.54 Sutherland v Peel (1864) 1 WW & a’B (E) 18 .… 27.8, 27.15 Sutton v O’Kane [1973] 2 NZLR 304 .… 4.14 Sutton v Sutton (1882) 22 Ch D 511 .… 3.13, 16.18, 16.28, 17.1 Svanosio v McNamara (1956) 96 CLR 186 .… 13.40 Swan v Swan (1820) 8 Price 578; 146 ER 1281 .… 11.6 Swann v Secureland Mortgage Investment Nominees Ltd [1992] 2 NZLR 144 .… 13.5 Swanston Mortgage Pty Ltd v Trepan Investments Pty Ltd [1994] 1 VR 672; (1993) V ConvR 54-487 .… 4.1, 4.7, 4.27, 4.28, 20.41, 20.42, 20.49, 28.9 Swayne v Swayne (1848) 11 Beav 463; 50 ER 896 .… 26.23, 26.26 Sweet & Maxwell Ltd v Universal News Services Pty Ltd [1964] 2 QB 699 . … 1.41 Sweet v Pym (1800) 1 East 4; 102 ER 2 .… 2.32 Sweetland v Smith (1833) 1 Cr & M 585; 149 ER 532 .… 40.24 Swift v Westpac Banking Corporation [1995] ATPR 41-401 .… 20.38 Swift 1st Ltd v Colin [2012] 2 WLR 186 .… 20.50 Swinfen v Swinfen (No 3) (1860) 29 Beav199; 54 ER 603 .… 36.4, 36.6

Swiss Bank Corp v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1982] AC 584; [1980] 2 All ER 419; [1981] 2 All ER 449 .… 1.9, 1.25, 1.33, 1.38, 1.41, 1.37, 2.2, 2.3, 2.6, 2.7, 3.6, 5.16, 6.11, 6.12, 16.14 Sydney and Suburban Mutual Building and Land Investment Assoc Ltd v Lyons [1894] Syers v Syers (1876) 1 App Cas 174 .… 6.22 Syme v Commonwealth (1942) 66 CLR 413 .… 38.4 Symon, Re [1944] SASR 102 .… 11.12 Symons v James (1843) 2 Y & C Ch Cas 301;63 ER 132 .… 30.3 Symons v Williams (1875) 1 VLR (Eq) 199 .… 13.16 Syrett v Egerton [1957] 3 All ER 331 .… 1.34 T Taafe’s Estate, Re (1864) 14 1 Ch R 347 .… 3.16 Tadrous v Tadrous [2010] NSWSC 1388 .… 39.50 Tadrous v Tadrous [2012] NSWCA 16 .… 39.50 Tagart, Beaton & Co v James Fisher & Sons[1903] 1 KB 391 .… 2.20 Tahiti Cotton Co, Re; Ex parte Sargent (1874) LR 17 Eq 273 .… 14.1, 15.1 Tailby v Official Receiver (1888) 13 App Cas 523; [1886–90] All ER Rep 486 .… 1.34, 5.5, 6.19, 6.21, 6.23, 6.25, 11.39 Takemura v National Australia Bank Ltd (2003) 11 BPR 21,185 .… 1.41, 3.17, 30.9 Talbot v Frere (1878) 9 Ch D 568 .… 1.53, 31.7 Tancred v Delagoa Bay Co (1889) 23 QBD 239 .… 6.5, 7.3 Tancred v Potts (1749) 2 Fonbl Eq 261n .… 21.1 Tancred’s Settlement, Re [1903] 1 Ch 715 .… 13.52 Tanner v Heard (1857) 23 Beav 555; 53 ER 219 .… 40.10, 40.17 Tannock v North Queensland Securities Ltd [1932] St R Qd 285 .… 9.8, 20.39, 21.7 Tanwar Enterprises Pty Ltd v Cauchi (2003) 201 ALR 359 .… 37.12

Tapply v Sheather (1862) 7 LT 298 .… 1.27 Target Home Loans Ltd v Clothier [1994] 1 All ER 439 .… 20.24 Tarn v Turner (1888) 39 Ch D 456; (1888) 57 LJ Ch 452 .… 12.17, 21.13, 32.20, 32.21, 40.9 Tasburgh v Echlin (1733) 3 Bro Parl Cas 265; 1 ER 934 .… 1.30 Task Enterprises Inc v Pratt Adjustment Company 695 P 2d 762 (1985) .… 5.136 Tasker v Small (1837) 3 My & Cr 63; 40 ER 848 .… 33.7, 33.14 Tasmanian Development Authority v Booth [1992] ACL Rep 295 Tas 1 .… 19.24 Tassell v Smith (1858) 2 De G & J 713; 44 ER 1166 .… 31.6, 31.7 Tate v Austin (1714) 1 P Wms 264; 24 ER 382 .… 30.7 Tate v Crewdson [1938] Ch 869 .… 3.16 Taunton v Sheriff of Warwickshire [1895] 2 Ch 319 .… 8.19 Taws v Knowles [1891] 2 QB 564 .… 36.5 Taylor, Re (1854) 18 Beav 165 .… 40.21 Taylor v Baker (1818) 5 Price 306; 146 ER 616 .… 24.16 Taylor v Bank of New South Wales (1886) 11 App Cas 596 .… 42.15 Taylor v Ellis [1960] Ch 368; [1960] 1 All ER 549 .… 12.17, 12.26 Taylor v Haylin (1788) 2 Bro CC 310; 29 ER 170 .… 39.3 Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422 .… 13.41 Taylor v London and County Banking Co [1901] 2 Ch 231 .… 3.41, 24.4, 24.6, 24.43, 24.44, 25.4, 26.11, 26.17 Taylor v Manners (1865) 1 Ch App 48 .… 34.2 Taylor v Mostyn (1883) 25 Ch D 48 .… 39.10, 39.33 Taylor v Mostyn (1886) 33 Ch D 266 .… 19.37, 39.33, 39.37 Taylor v Parkinson & Blyth (1911) 31 NZLR 354 .… 20.31

Taylor v Russell [1891] 1 Ch 8 .… 24.44, 25.4 Taylor v Russell [1892] AC 244 .… 24.6, 25.4 Taylor v Waters (1836) 1 My & Cr 266; 40 ER 376 .… 22.45 Taylor v Wheeler (1706) 2 Salk 449; 91 ER 388 .… 3.49 Taylor v Wheeler (1706) 2 Vern 564; 23 ER 968 .… 11.3 Taylor v White (1964) 110 CLR 129 .… 5.104 Taylor v Wolfe & Co (1892) 18 VLR 727 .… 4.38 Taylor and Rumboll, Re; Ex parte Rumbol (1971) 6 Ch App 842 .… 23.5 Taylor, Stileman and Underwood, Re [1891] 1 Ch 590 .… 2.36, 2.37 Teachers Health Investments Pty Ltd v Wynne (1994) 6 BPR 13,499 .… 13.16, 13.30 Teaktrim Pty Ltd v Lewis (SC (Qld), McPherson J, 14 December 1989, unreported) .… 17.2 Teevan v Smith (1882) 20 Ch D 724 .… 21.13, 32.8, 32.25, 33.19 Teissier’s Settled Estates, Re [1893] 1 Ch 153 .… 2.17 Tempest v Lord Camoys (1882) 21 Ch D 571 .… 11.12 Temple, Ex parte (1822) 1 GL & J 216 .… 12.5, 12.9 Templeton v Leviathan Pty Ltd (1921) 30 CLR 34 .… 4.15, 24.12, 28.7 Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd v Oliver [2002] WASC 220 .… 32.55 Tenison v Sweeney (1844) 1 Jo & Lat 710 .… 36.13 Tennant v Trenchard (1869) LR 4 Ch App 537 .… 2.8, 3.36, 20.40, 21.10, 21.11, 21.18, 22.44 Terrapin International Ltd v IRC [1976] 1 WLR 665; [1976] 2 All ER 461 . … 3.5 Teulon v Curtis (1832) 1 You 610; 159 ER 1135 .… 40.11 Tewkesbury Gas Co, Re [1911] 2 Ch 279 .… 17.8 Tewkesbury Gas Co, Re [1912] 1 Ch 1 .… 17.3

Tex Star Motors Inc v Regal Finance Company Ltd 401 SW 3d 190 .… 5.121, 5.126 Texaco Ltd v Mulberry Filling Station [1972] 1 All ER 513 .… 32.9 Textron Financial Canada Ltd v Beta Ltée/Beta Brands Ltd (2007) 12 PPSAC (3d) 46; 37 CBR (5th) 107 .… 5.72 Thackwray & Young’s Contract, Re (1888) 40 Ch D 34 .… 2.11 Thames Guaranty Ltd v Campbell [1984] 2 All ER 585 .… 1.33 Thames Guaranty Ltd v Campbell [1985] QB 210; [1984] 1 All ER 144 .… 1.9, 1.29, 1.38, 1.41, 3.32, 3.37, 3.39, 3.40, 4.20, 11.4, 13.44 Thanes Pty Ltd v Custom Credit Corporation Ltd (1985) 5 BPR 11,955 .… 12.7, 12.20 Tharp, Re (1852) 2 Sm & Giff 578; 65 ER 533 .… 2.17 Thatcher v C H Pearce & Sons (Contractors) Ltd [1968] 1 WLR 748 .… 37.10 The Africano [1894] P 141 .… 9.21 The Aina (1854) 1 Sp Ecc & Ad 313; 164 ER 181 .… 9.27, 37.2 The Aline (1839) 1 W Rob 111; 166 ER 514 .… 9.21 The Anchor Line (Henderson Bros) Ltd, Re [1937] Ch 483; [1937] 2 All ER 823 .… 1.46, 8.2 The Anderson Group Pty Ltd v Tynan Motors Pty Ltd (2006) 65 NSWLR 400 .… 5.43 The Arab (1859) 5 Jur NS 417 .… 6.7, 9.20 The Atlas (1827) 2 Hag Adm 48 .… 9.19 The Basildon [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 134 .… 9.16, 9.26 The Benwell Tower (1895) 72 LT 664 .… 6.2, 9.15, 20.44, 25.7, 32.15, 39.56 The Betty Orr [1992] 1 NZLR 655 .… 9.22 The Blanche (1887) 58 LT 592 .… 9.15

The Brown Buccleugh (1851) 7 Moo PCC 367; 13 ER 884 .… 9.21 The Cathcart (1867) LR 1 A & E 314 .… 9.15, 9.24, 9.26 The Celtic King [1894] P 175 .… 9.16 The Colorado [1923] P 102 .… 9.22 The Coromandel (1857) Sw 205; 166 ER 1097 .… 9.21 The Dowthorpe (1843) 2 W Rob 73; 166 ER 682 .… 9.21 The Eastern Monarch (1860) Lush 81; 167 ER 43 .… 9.21 The Edward Oliver (1867) LR 1 A & E 379 .… 9.20 The Elin (1883) 8 PD 129 .… 9.21 The Europa (1863) Brown & Lush 89; 167 ER 313 .… 9.21 The Fair Haven (1866) LR 1 A & E 67 .… 19.39 The Fairport (1882) 8 PD 48 .… 9.21 The Fairport (No 4) [1967] 1 WLR 964; [1967] 2 All ER 914n .… 9.21 The Halcyon Isle [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 325 .… 9.19 The Halcyon Isle [1981] AC 221; [1988] 3 All ER 197 (PC) .… 9.22 The Harriett (1841) 1 Wm Rob 182; 166 ER 541 .… 35.8 The Heather Bell [1901] P 143 .… 9.16 The Heather Bell [1901] P 272 .… 9.16 The Hope (1873) 1 Asp MLC 563 .… 9.21 The John (1849) 3 W Rob 170;166 ER 926 .… 9.25 The Kepler (1861) Lush 201; 167 ER 97 .… 40.8 The La Constancia (1846) 2 Wm Rob 460; 166 ER 829 .… 9.20 The Linda Flor (1857) Sw 309; 166 ER 1150 .… 9.21 The Marie Glaeser [1914] P 218 .… 9.27, 37.2 The Maule [1997] 1 WLR 520 .… 9.26, 20.11 The Manor [1907] P 339 .… 9.15

The Mary Ann (1865) LR 1 A & E 8 .… 9.19 The Monmouth Coast (1922) 12 L1 L Rep 22 .… 9.26 The Myrto [1977] 2 Ll Rep 243 .… 9.16 The Myrto [1978] 1 Ll Rep 11 .… 9.16 The Neptune (1835) 3 Knapp 94; 12 ER 584 .… 9.21 The New Eagle (1846) 2 W Rob 441; 166 ER 822 .… 9.21 The Ningchow (1916) 31 TLR 470 .… 20.3 The Pan Oak [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 36 .… 9.15 The Pioneer Container [1994] 2 AC 324 (PC) .… 5.25 The Priscilla (1859) 1 Lush 1;167 ER 1 .… 9.20 The Queen of the South [1968] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 182 .… 9.26 The Rellim (1922) 39 TLR 41 .… 9.21 The Rose (1873) LR 4 A & E 6 .… 9.28 The Russland [1924] P 55 .… 9.21 The Saracen (1846) 4 Notes of Cases 512 .… 9.21 The Saracen (1847) 6 Moo PCC 75; 13 ER 604 .… 9.21 The Scio (1867) LR 1 A & E 353 .… 9.21 The Span Terza (No 2) [1983] 1 WLR 632 .… 9.15 The Span Terza (No 2) [1984] 1 WLR 27 .… 9.15 The Steam Fisher [1927] P 73 .… 9.21 The Sydney Cove (1815) 2 Dods 1; 165 ER 1396 .… 9.21 The Tagus [1903] P 44 .… 9.21 The Tobago (1804) 5 C Rob 218; 165 ER 754 .… 9.27, 37.2 The Tremont (1841) 1 Wm Rob 163; 166 ER 534 .… 22.50 The Veritas [1901] P 304 .… 9.21 The William F Safford (1860) Lush 69; 167 ER 37 .… 9.21

The Wilsons (1841) 1 Wm Rob 173 .… 22.44 Theodore v Mistford Pty Ltd (2005) CLR 612; 219 ALR 296 .… 3.36 Thet Mah and Associates, Inc v First Bank of North Dakota 336 N W 2d 134; 36 UCC Rep Serv 649 (1983) .… 5.82 Thoars, Re [2005] 1 BCLC 331 .… 13.4 Thomas, Re (2002) 301 AR 373 .… 5.15, 5.30 Thomas v Brigstocke (1827) 4 Russ 64; 38 ER 729 .… 19.16, 39.18 Thomas v Cross (1864) 11 LT 430 .… 42.3 Thomas v Evans (1808) 10 East 101; 103 ER 714 .… 32.46 Thomas v National Australia Bank Ltd [2000] 2 Qd R 448 .… 26.2 Thomas v Robinson [1977] 1 NZLR 385 .… 5.94, 5.97 Thomas v Rose [1968] 3 All ER 765 .… 1.38 Thomas v Silvia (1994) 35 NSWLR 96; 14 ACSR 446 .… 32.16 Thomas v Thomas (1855) 2 K & J 79; 69 ER 701 .… 30.7 Thomas v Thomas (1856) 22 Beav 341; 52 ER 1139 .… 25.6 Thompson, Re; Ex parte Smith (1976) 8 ALR 479 .… 22.8, 30.7, 32.30, 33.2 Thompson v Baskerville (1688) 3 Rep Ch 215;21 ER 770 .… 33.3 Thompson v Boyd (1888) 14 VLR 594 .… 13.9 Thompson v Cartwright (1836) 33 Beav 178;55 ER 335 .… 24.23 Thompson v Drew (1855) 20 Beav 49; 52 ER 521 .… 39.42 Thompson v Grant (1819) 4 Madd 438; 56 ER 767 .… 22.51, 33.12 Thompson v Hudson (1869) LR 4 HL 1 .… 1.30 Thompson v Hudson (1870) LR 10 Eq 497 .… 39.35 Thompson v Kendall (1840) 9 Sim 397; 59 ER 411 .… 22.9, 33.27 Thompson v Lack (1846) 3 CB 540; 136 ER 216 .… 35.11 Thompson v Palmer (1933) 49 CLR 507 .… 2.19, 17.11

Thompson v Rumball (1839) 3 Jur 53 .… 40.27 Thompson v Waithman (1856) 3 Drew 628;61 ER 1043 .… 16.34 Thompson v Webster (1859) 4 Drew 628; 62 ER 241 .… 13.6 Thompson v Yockney (1914) 6 WWR 1397 .… 1.40, 4.7 Thompson and Holt, Re (1890) 44 Ch D 492 .… 20.6, 20.18 Thomson and Chipp v Finlay (1886) NZLR 5 SC 203 .… 12.7, 12.17, 12.19 Thomson’s Mortgage Trusts, Re [1920] 1 Ch 508 .… 20.45 Thorn v Croft (1866) LR 3 Eq 193 .… 12.10 Thornborough v Baker (1675) 3 Swan 628; 36 ER 1000 .… 1.14, 1.27, 1.29 Thorne v Cann [1895] AC 11 .… 36.4, 36.7 Thorne v Heard [1894] 1 Ch 599 .… 16.36 Thorne v Heard [1895] AC 495 .… 20.44, 24.22 Thorne (H E) & Son Ltd, Re [1914] 2 Ch 438 .… 1.53 Thorneycroft v Crockett (1848) 16 Sim 445; 60 ER 946 .… 39.33, 39.36, 42.21 Thorneycroft v Crockett (1848) 2 HL Cas 239; 9 ER 1082 .… 22.15, 31.4, 39.37, 39.39 Thornhill v Manning (1851) 1 Sim (NS) 451; 61 ER 174 .… 21.7, 22.35, 22.40 Thornton v Court (1854) 3 De GM & G 293;43 ER 115 .… 32.55, 39.42 Thornton v France [1897] 2 QB 143 .… 16.31 Thorp Sales Corp v Dolese Brothers Co 453 F Supp 196 (1978) (WD Okla) . … 3.8 Threlfall, Re; Ex parte Queen’s Benefit Building Society (1880) 16 Ch D 274 .… 12.10 Thunder d Weaver v Belcher (1803) 3 East 449; 102 ER 669 .… 12.9 Thurlow v Mackenson (1868) LR 4 QB 97 .… 20.6 Thurston v Nottingham Permanent Benefit Building Society [1902] 1 Ch 1;

[1903] AC 6 .… 2.13, 2.14, 2.18, 42.19 Thynne v Sarl [1891] 2 Ch 79 .… 22.13, 22.49 Tibbits v George (1836) 5 Ad & El 107; 111 ER 1107 .… 1.40, 6.11 Tichener, Re (1865) 35 Beav 317; 55 ER 918 .… 26.18 Tidd v Lister (1852) 10 Hare 140; 68 ER 872 .… 30.9 Tidd v Lister (1854) 3 De GM & G 857; 43 ER 336 .… 30.14 Tietyens v Cox (1916) 17 SR (NSW) 48 .… 4.2, 21.9, 22.52 Tighe v Dolphin [1906] 1 IR 305 .… 30.5 Tildesley v Lodge (1857) 3 Sm & G 543; 65 ER 772 .… 24.11, 40.3 Tillett v Nixon (1883) 25 Ch D 238 .… 18.21 Timson v Ramsbottom (1837) 2 Keen 35; 48 ER 541 .… 26.12, 26.23 Tinsley v Milligan [1993] 3 WLR 126; [1993] 3 All ER 65 .… 13.46 Tipping v Power (1842) 1 Hare 405; 66 ER 1090 .… 21.8, 40.16 Tipton Green Colliery Co v Tipton Moat Colliery Co (1877) 7 Ch D 192 .… 19.36 Titley v Davies (1743) 2 Y & CCC 399n; 63 ER 177 .… 22.26, 30.12, 31.10 Tobin v Melrose [1951] SASR 139 .… 2.31 Todd Shipyards Corp v Altema Compania Maritima SA (1972) 32 DLR (3d) 571 .… 1.43 Todd Shipyards Corp v Altema Compania Maritima SA; The Ioannis Daskalelis [1974] 1 Ll Rep 174 .… 9.21 Toft v Stephenson (1851) 1 De GM & G 28; 42 ER 461 .… 16.34 Toleman & England, Re; Ex parte Bramble (1880) 13 Ch D 885 .… 2.47 Tolhurst v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers [1903] AC 414; [1902] 2 KB 660 .… 6.4, 7.2 Tomlin v Luce (1889) 41 Ch D 573 .… 20.21, 20.27 Tomlin v Tomlin (1841) 1 Hare 236; 66 ER 1019 .… 39.2, 39.5

Tompsett v Wickens (1855) 3 Sm & G 171; 65 ER 611 526 .… 22.45 Tompson v Leith (1858) 4 Jur NS 1091 .… 39.52 Toms v Kimble [1992] ACL Rep 295 NSW 3 .… 33.7 Toms v Wilson (1862) 4 B & S 442; 122 ER 524 .… 19.15 Tomson v Judge [1855] 3 Drew 306; 61 ER 920 .… 42.2 Tonkin, Re; Ex parte Jones (1933) 6 ABC 197 .… 1.23 Tonto Home Loans Australia Pty Ltd v Tavares [2011] NSWCA 389; (2011) 15 BPR 29,699 .… 1.55, 13.36 Tony Lee Motors Ltd v M S MacDonald & Son (1974) Ltd [1981] 2 NZLR 281 .… 6.6 Toogood, Re (1889) 61 LT 19 .… 25.5 Toohey v Gunther (1928) 41 CLR 181 .… 17.11, 32.11, 32.12 Tooheys Ltd v Sydney MC (1946) 71 CLR 407 .… 4.10 Took v Bishop of Ely (1705) 15 Vin Abr 476 .… 22.38, 22.40 Tooth & Co Ltd v Lapin (1936) 35 WN (NSW) 224 .… 20.22 Tooth & Co v Parkes (1900) 21 LR (NSW) (Eq) 173 .… 1.7, 32.12 Tori and McMahon, Re [1971] Qd R 256 .… 32.6 Torkington v Magee [1902] 2 KB 427 .… 6.5, 7.2, 6.24 Toronto-Dominion Bank v Block Bros Contractors Ltd (1980) 118 DLR (3d) 311 .… 4.33 Toronto-Dominion Bank v Flexi-Coil (1993) 4 PPSAC (2d) 288; 107 Sask R 221 .… 5.39 Toronto Dominion Bank v Gottdank (2000) 1 PPSAC (3d) 67 .… 5.16 Toronto Dominion Bank v McCowan (1995) 20 BLR (2d) 138 .… 5.16 Toronto General Trust Corp v R [1919] AC 679 .… 1.44 Topfelt Pty Ltd v State Bank of NSW Ltd (1993) 6 BPR 13,209 .… 4.37, 20.11 Torre v Jonamill (2002) 10 BPR 19,417 .… 3.14

Torzillu Pty Ltd v Brynac Pty Ltd (1983) 8 ACLR 52 .… 8.11 Toscano v Holland Securities Pty Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 145 .… 38.6 Tottenham v Green (1863) 32 LJ Ch 201 .… 13.11, 39.11 Toulmin v Steere (1817) 3 Mer 210; 36 ER 81 .… 24.10, 24.12, 36.10 Touzell v Cawthorn (1995) 18 ACSR 328 .… 33.21 Towerson v Jackson [1891] 2 QB 484 .… 12.19, 39.14 Town and Country Bank v Inverarity (SC (WA), Murray J, 29 March 1995, unreported) .… 19.24 Town & Country Sport Resorts (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Partnership Pacific Ltd (1988) 20 FCR 540 .… 20.38 Townsend v Westacott (1840) 2 Beav 340; 48 ER 1212 .… 13.6 Trademark Homes (Aust) Pty Ltd, Re (1996) 131 FLR 201; 67 SASR 107 . … 7.10 Traders Finance Corp Ltd v Bond Motor Sales [1954] OWN 785 .… 2.32 Tramways Building & Construction Co Ltd, Re (1987) The Times 21 August .… 14.6 Trans Trust SPRL v Danubian Trading Co Ltd [1952] 2 QB 297 .… 1.41 Transamerica Commercial Finance Corp, Canada v Imperial TV & Stereo Centre Ltd (Receiver of) (1993) 146 AR 31 .… 5.91 Transcontinental Corporation Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1987) 87 FLR 453 .… 8.11 Transport & General Credit Corp Ltd v Morgan [1939] Ch 531 .… 11.39 Transport Equipment Company v Quaranty State Bank (1975) 518 F 2d 377 . … 5.43 Trapp v Tidwell 418 So 786 (1982) (Miss) .… 3.8 Trappes v Harter (1833) 2 Cr & M 153; 149 ER 712 .… 1.21 Travinto Nominees Pty Ltd v Vlattas (1973) 129 CLR 1 .… 4.12, 4.13, 4.18 Travis and Arnold Ltd v Burnett [1964] EGD 318 .… 1.38

Trembatt v Carr (1897) 23 VLR 437 .… 4.29 Trench v Doran (1887) 20 LR Ir 338 .… 17.3 Trendent Industries Pty Ltd, Re (1983) 8 ACLR 115 .… 2.3 Trent v Hunt (1853) 9 Exch 14; 156 ER 7 .… 12.13, 12.17, 12.20 Trestrail v Mason (1878) 7 Ch D 665 .… 29.2, 30.2 Trevascus, Ex p; William McCulloch & CoLtd, Re (1879) 5 VLR (L) 195 . … 2.18 Trevillan v Exeter (1854) 5 De G M & G828; 43 ER 1091 .… 2.18 Triantafillidis v National Australia Bank Ltd (1995) ConvR 54-536 .… 19.24 Tribourg v Lord Pomfret (1773) cited Amb 733; 27 ER 474 .… 31.3 Tricontinental Corp Ltd v FCT (1987) 18 ATR 827 .… 41.1 Tricontinental Corp Ltd v FCT [1988] 1 QdR 474; (1987) 73 ALR 433 .… 8.18, 8.21 Trimleston v Hamill (1810) 1 Ball & B 377 .… 39.25, 39.30 Trimmer v Bayne (1803) 9 Ves 209; 32 ER 592 .… 30.10 Tristram, Re; Ex parte Hartley (1835) 1 Deac 288 .… 30.14 Troncone v Aliperti (1994) 6 BPR 13,291 .… 2.3, 2.4, 4.24, 4.28 Tropical Traders Ltd v Goonan [1964] WAR 234 .… 12.11, 19.2 Troughton v Binkes (1801) 6 Ves 573; 31 ER 1202 .… 32.26, 32.27, 33.6, 33.7 Trulock v Robey (1841) 12 Sim 402; 59 ER 1186 .… 32.88 Trulock v Robey (1846) 15 Sim 265; 60 ER 619 .… 39.31 Truro (Town of) v Toronto General Insurance Co (1973) 38 DLR (3d) 1 .… 35.8 Trust & Agency Co v Markwell (No 2) (1874) 4 QSCR 50 .… 4.7, 4.8 Trustees and Executor Co Ltd v Bagot’s Executor and Trustee Co Ltd [1964] SASR 306 .… 4.38 Tsang Chuen v Li Po Kwai [1932] AC 715 .… 24.37, 28.14

TSB Bank plc v Camfield [1995] 1 All ER 951; [1995] 1 WLR 430 .… 13.19 TSB Bank plc v Platts [1998] 2 BCLC 1 .… 1.48, 23.9 Tse Kwong Lam v Wong Chit Sen [1983] 3 All ER 54; [1984] 1 WLR 1349 .… 20.21, 20.23, 20.33, 20.34, 20.40, 20.42 Tubbs v Ruby 2005 Limited [2010] NZCA 353 .… 5.104 Tucaba Pty Ltd v AGC Advances Ltd [1991] ACL Rep 295 NSW 13 .… 20.38, 32.53 Tucker v Farm & General Investment TrustLtd [1966] 2 QB 421 .… 3.27 Tudor Heights Ltd v United Dominions Corp Finance Ltd [1977] 1 NZLR 532 .… 8.4 Tufdnell v Nicholls (1887) 56 LT 152 .… 22.28 Tufton v Sperni [1952] 2 TLR 516 .… 13.18, 13.24 Tull v Owen (1840) 4 Y & C Ex 192; 160 ER 965 .… 1.25 Tulloch Ltd (in liq), Re (1978) 3 ACLR 808 .… 23.14, 37.13 Turbinator Inc v Superior Court of Riverside County (1995) 33 Cal App 4th 443 .… 5.43 Turcan, Re (1888) 40 Ch D 5 .… 1.34 Turnbull v Duval [1902] AC 429 .… 13.17 Turnbull v National Mutual Royal Bank Ltd (1991) 26 NSWLR 361 .… 20.15 Turner, Re; Ex parte West Riding Union Banking Co (1881) 19 Ch D 105 . … 23.7 Turner, Re; Tennant v Turner [1938] Ch 593; [1938] 2 All ER 560 .… 29.2 Turner, Re; Turner v Spencer (1894) 43 WR 153 .… 16.5 Turner v Barton [1918] NZLR 107 .… 16.7 Turner v Deane (1849) 3 Ex 836; 154 ER 1083 .… 2.40 Turner v Hancock (1882) 20 Ch D 303 .… 40.6

Turner v Letts (1855) 7 De GM & G 243; 44 ER 95 .… 2.40 Turner v Meymott (1823) 1 Bing 158; 130 ER 64 .… 19.19 Turner v Smith [1901] 1 Ch 213 .… 14.2, 14.11, 39.12, 39.20 Turner v Walsh [1900] 2 KB 484 .… 12.3, 12.28, 12.31 Tweedale v Tweedale (1857) 23 Beav 341; 53 ER 134 .… 31.6, 31.7, 31.8 Tweedie, Re (1908) 53 Sol Jo 118 .… 12.14 Twentieth Century Banking Corp Ltd v Wilkinson [1977] Ch 99; [1976] 3 All ER 361 .… 1.15, 16.4, 16.5, 17.8, 19.12, 20.6, 21.2, 21.21, 21.23 Twigg v Keady (1996) 135 FLR 257 .… 2.48 Twigg v Kung (2002) 55 NSWLR 485 .… 2.49 Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley [2002] 2 AC 164 .… 5.121 Twopenny v Young (1824) 3 B & C 208; 107 ER 711 .… 34.8, 36.16 Twyne’s case (1602) 3 Co Rep 80 b; 76 ER 809 .… 5.41, 13.7 Tylee v Webb (1843) 6 Beav 552; 49 ER 939 .… 22.5, 22.7, 33.2 Tyler v Lake (1831) 4 Sim 351; 58 ER 131 .… 36.6 Tyler v Manson (1826) 5 LJ OS Ch 34 .… 39.58 Tyler v Yates (1871) LR 6 Ch App 665 .… 13.11, 13.14 Tyrwhitt v Tyrwhitt (1863) 32 Beav 244; 55 ER 96 .… 36.6 U UCB Group Ltd v Hedworth [2003] EWCA Civ 1717; [2003] All ER (D) 71 .… 2.18, 11.10 Udall v Capri Lighting Ltd [1988] QB 907; [1987] 3 All ER 262 .… 32.74 Ultimate Property Group Pty Ltd v Lord (2004) 60 NSWLR 646; 11 BPR 21,477 .… 18.13, 19.34, 20.21, 20.22, 20.51, 20.54, 39.2, 39.2 Ultra Precision Industries, Re 503 F 2d 414 (9th Cir) (1974) .… 5.87 Underhay v Read (1887) 20 QBD 209; 36 WR 298 .… 12.14, 12.20, 19.16, 39.14

Underwood, In the Will of (1889) 10 LR (NSW) Eq 227 .… 31.8 Union Bank of Australia Ltd v Whitelaw [1906] VLR 711 .… 13.21 Union Bank of Australia v O’Leary (1897) 13 WN (NSW) 124 .… 7.8 Union Bank of Australia v Waterman (1894) 12 NZLR 673 .… 1.48 Union Bank of London v Ingram (1880) 16 Ch D 53 .… 19.42, 39.35, 39.55 Union Bank of London v Ingram (1882) 20 Ch D 463 .… 21.15 Union Bank of London v Kent (1888) 39 Ch D 238 .… 24.27, 26.11 Union Bank of Manchester Ltd v Beech (1865) 3 H & C 672; 159 ER 695 . … 35.8 Union Bank of Scotland v National Bank of Scotland (1886) 12 App Cas 53 . … 25.7 Union Bank v Downes (1896) 12 WN (NSW) 131 .… 16.8, 18.7 Union Bank v Munster (1887) 37 Ch D 51 .… 21.23 Union Bank v O’Leary (1897) 13 WN (NSW) 124 .… 24.50 Union Cement and Brick Co, Re; Ex parte Pulbrook (1896) 4 Ch App 627 . … 2.40 Union Fidelity Trustee Co v Gibson [1971] VR 573 .… 13.16, 13.24 Union Trustee Co of Australia Ltd v Exton [1937] QWN 51 .… 21.6, 21.5, 22.55 Unisource Canada Inc v Laurentian Bank of Canada (2000) 15 PPSAC (2d) 105; 15 CBR (4th) 315 .… 5.79, 5.82, 5.86 United Bank of Kuwait Plc v Sahib [1995] 2 All ER 973; [1995] 2 WLR 94 . … 26.4 United Builders Pty Ltd v Commercial Banking Co of Sydney Ltd [1975] Qd R357 .… 20.38 United Builders Pty Ltd v Mutual Acceptance Ltd (1980) 144 CLR 673 .… 5.35, 5.117, 6.18, 8.11, 8.13, 11.28 United Dominions Corp Ltd v Jaybe Homes Pty Ltd [1978] Qd R 111 .… 3.14, 19.23, 20.36

United Dominions Trust Ltd v Beech [1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 546 .… 1.25 United Dominions Trust Ltd v Shellpoint Trustees [1993] 4 All ER 310 .… 37.9, 37.11 United Dominions Trust Ltd v Western [1976] QB 513; [1975] 3 All ER 1017 .… 13.41 United Law Clerks’ Society, Re [1947] Ch 150 .… 1.4 United Mining and Finance Corp Ltd v Becher [1910] 2 KB 296 .… 32.74 United Overseas Bank v Jiwani [1977] 1 All ER 733 .… 32.40 United Pacific Transport Pty Ltd, Re [1968] Qd R 517 .… 3.7 United Realization Co Pty Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue [1899] 1 QB 361 .… 1.7 United Starr-Bowkett Co-op BuildingSociety (No 11) Ltd v Clyne (1967) 68 SR (NSW) 331; [1968] 1 NSWR 134 .… 4.10, 4.36, 12.13, 12.17, 19.5 United States Trust Co of New York v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1993) 11 ACSR 7 .… 10.15 United Travel Agencies Pty Ltd v Cain (1990) 20 NSWLR 566 .… 1.9, 1.37, 2.2, 2.8, 7.5, 7.8, 7.9, 21.1, 21.9, 21.10, 21.11, 22.5, 24.50 Universal Distributing Co Ltd, Re (1933) 48 CLR 171; [1933] ALR 107 .… 2.16, 2.17, 2.52, 8.21, 18.15 Universal Handling Equipment Co v Redipac Recycling Inc (1992) 4 PPSAC (2d) 15 .… 5.39 Universal Management Ltd, Re [1983] NZLR 462 .… 1.28, 1.29 Universal Showcards & Display Manufacturing Ltd v Brunt (1984) 128 Sol Jo 581 .… 10.10, 19.13 Universe Tankships Inc of Monrovia v International Transport Workers Federation [1983] 1 AC 366; [1982] 2 All ER 67 .… 13.38, 13.39 University of Melbourne v Avram Hotels Pty Ltd (1991) V ConvR 54-395 . … 1.20 Uplands, Re [1948] WN (Eng) 165 .… 32.77

Upper Hunter County District Council v Australian Chilling & Freezing Co (1968) 118 CLR 429 .… 5.38 Upton v Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees Pty Ltd (2007) 242 ALR 422; 158 FCR 118 .… 20.21, 20.22 Ure v FCT (1981) 11 ATR 484 .… 41.3 Usborne v Usborne (1740) 1 Dick 75; 21 ER 196 .… 42.20 Ushers Brewery Ltd v Alro Club Holdings Ltd (1970) 213 EG 1537 .… 19.23 Ushers Brewery Ltd v PS King & Co (Finance) Ltd (1969) 113 Sol Jo 815 . … 3.29, 37.8 UTC Ltd (in liq) v NZI Securities Australia Ltd (1991) 4 WAR 349 .… 1.7, 3.36, 3.37, 3.42, 6.17, 15.2, 34.5 Uttermare v Stevens (1851) 17 LTOS 115 .… 39.37, 39.40 Uziell-Hamilton v Keen (1971) 22 P & CR 655 .… 2.13 V Vacuum Oil Co Ltd v Ellis [1914] 1 KB 693 .… 10.9, 19.11, 19.14, 19.21, 20.47 Vacuum Oil Co Pty Ltd v Wiltshire (1945) 72 CLR 319 .… 2.9, 2.18 Vadasz v Pioneer Concrete (SA) Pty Ltd (1995) 184 CLR 102 .… 13.40 Vale v Merideth (1854) 18 Jur 992 .… 33.27 Vale v Oppert (1875) LR 10 Ch 340 .… 2.44 Valletort Sanitary Steam Laundry Co, Re; Ward v Valletort Sanitary Steam Laundry Co Ltd [1903] 2 Ch 654 .… 8.18, 8.21, 24.14, 24.20 Valley Media, Inc, Re 279 BR 105 (2002) .… 5.23 Valpy, Re;Valpy v Valpy [1906] 1 Ch 531 .… 29.3 Van Den Bosch v Australian Provincial Assurance Association [1968] 2 NSWR 550; 88 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 357 .… 16.20, 21.3, 21.4, 22.54 Van den Heuvel v Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd [2010] NSWCA 171; 15

BPR 28,647 .… 4.17, 4.20 Van Der Velde v Ng [2011] FCA 594 .… 40.2 Van Gelder, Apsimon & Co v Sowerby Bridge United District Flour Society (1890) 44 Ch D 374 .… 6.26, 12.2, 19.45 Van Hagan, Re (1880) 16 Ch D 18 .… 21.13 Van Hool McArdle Ltd v Rohan Industrial Estates Ltd [1980] IR 237 .… 20.41 Van Kempen v Finance & Investment Pty Ltd (1984) 6 NSWLR 293 .… 32.15, 32.35, 39.59 Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1969] 1 QB 658; [1968] 3 All ER 824 .… 6.4, 6.7 Vane v Ryden (1870) 5 Ch App 663 .… 11.17 Varangian Pty Ltd v OFM Capital Ltd [2003] VSC 444 .… 16.7 Varga v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1996) 7 BPR 15,052 .… 9.12 Vasiliou v Westpac Banking Corporation (2007) 19 VR 229 .… 20.22, 20.32, 20.37 Vassis, Re; Ex parte Leung (1986) 9 FCR 518; 64 ALR 407 .… 11.3, 13.43 Vassos v State Bank of South Australia [1993] 2 VR 316; (1992) V ConvR 54-443 .… 4.11, 4.16, 4.20 Vaudeville Electric Cinema v Muriset Ltd [1923] 2 Ch 74 .… 1.20, 3.26, 13.42 Vaughan v Vanderstegen (1854) 2 Drew 289; 61 ER 730 .… 36.13 Vaughan v Vanderstegen (Annesley’s case) (1854) 2 Drew 409; 61 ER 778 . … 2.35, 2.36 Vector Capital Ltd v SNS Software Network Systems Pty Ltd (1988) 12 ACLR 723 .… 11.41 Vella v Permanent Mortgages Pty Ltd (2008) 13 BPR 25,343 .… 1.55 Venables v Foyle (1661) 1 Cas in Ch 2; 1 ER 789 .… 19.34 Venn & Furze’s Contract, Re [1894] 2 Ch 101 .… 11.18

Venning, Re (1947) 63 TLR 394 .… 39.58 Vered v Inscorp Holdings Ltd (1993) 31 NSWLR 290 .… 2.21, 2.28, 2.31 Vernon, Re (1886) 33 Ch D 402 .… 24.43 Vernon v Bethell (1762) 2 Eden 110; 28 ER 838 .… 32.11, 32.18 Vernon, Ewens & Co, Re (1886) 33 Ch D 402 .… 2.18 Vibart v Coles (1890) 24 QBD 364 .… 36.15 Vickers v Cowell (1839) 1 Beav 259; 48 ER 1046 .… 22.4, 32.50, 33.18 Victor Investment Corp v Fidelity Trust Co (1973) 41 DLR (3d) 65 .… 30.12 Victoria and Grey Trust Co v Brewer (1971) 14 DLR (3d) 28 .… 30.9 Victoria Steamboats Ltd, Re; Smith v Wilkinson [1897] 1 Ch 158 .… 8.11, 18.19 Victorian Farmers’ Loan and Agency Co Ltd, Re (1897) 22 VLR 629 .… 4.28 Victorian Producers’ Co-operative Co Ltd v Leng (1918) 24 ALR 35 .… 6.5 Vimbos Ltd, Re [1900] 1 Ch 470 .… 18.15 Vint v Padget (1858) 2 De G & J 611; 44 ER 1126 .… 31.6, 31.8 Visbord v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1943) 68 CLR 354 .… 12.9, 18.5, 19.21 Visbord v Irvine [1921] VLR 562 .… 16.17, 17.1 Vital Learning Aids Pty Ltd, Re [1979] 2 NSWLR 442 .… 1.11 Vivian & Co, Re; Metropolitan Bank of England and Wales v Vivian & Co [1900] 2 Ch 654 .… 8.16, 8.18 Voisey, Ex parte; Re Knight (1882) 21 Ch D 442 .… 12.11 Voyce v Voyce (1991) 62 P & CR 290 .… 35.12 Vrkic v Otta International Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 433 .… 1.34 Vukicevic v Alliance Acceptance Co Ltd (1987) 9 NSWLR 13 .… 4.9, 12.18 Vulcan Ironworks Ltd, Re (1888) 4 TLR 312 .… 2.12

Vyvyan v Vyvyan (1861) 30 Beav 65; 54 ER 813 .… 35.1 W W R Carpenter Australia Ltd v Ogle [1999] 2 Qd R 327 .… 22.36 W Tasker & Sons Ltd, Re; Hoare v W Tasker & Sons Ltd [1905] 2 Ch 587 . … 36.9 Waddell v Hutton [1911] SC 575 .… 6.17 Waddell v Toleman (1878) 9 Ch D 212 .… 14.14 Waddilove v Taylor (1848) 6 Hare 307; 67 ER 1183 .… 40.25 Wade and Thomas, Re (1881) 17 Ch D 348 .… 32.80, 40.25 Wade v Coope (1827) 2 Sim 155; 57 ER 747 .… 21.13 Wade v Wilson (1882) 22 Ch D 235 .… 21.22, 21.23 Wadham, Re (1879) 13 SALR 70 .… 4.24 Wadsworth, Re; Rhodes v Sugden (1886) 34 Ch D 155 .… 24.33 Wadsworth v Lydall [1981] 2 All ER 401; [1981] 1 WLR 598 .… 1.41 Waimiha Sawmilling Co Ltd (in liq) v Waione Timber Co Ltd [1926] AC 101 .… 4.15 Wainman v Bowker (1845) 8 Beav 363; 50 ER 142 .… 39.45 Waite v Bingley (1882) 21 Ch D 674 .… 11.6 Waitomo Wools (NZ) Ltd v Nelsons (NZ) Ltd [1974] 1 NZLR 484 .… 1.9, 1.37, 2.3 Wakefield, Re; Gordon v Wakefield [1943] 2 All ER 29 .… 29.2 Wakefield v Newbon (1844) 6 QB 276; 115 ER 107 .… 2.41 Wakefield and Barnsley Union Bank Ltd v Yates [1916] 1 Ch 452 .… 16.31 Waldron v Bird [1974] VR 497 .… 1.7 Waldron v Sloper (1852) 1 Drew 193; 61 ER 425 .… 24.43, 25.45 Waldy v Gray (1875) LR 20 Eq 238 .… 24.40 Wale, Re; Wale v Harris [1956] 1 WLR 1346; [1956] 3 All ER 280 .… 6.11,

34.2 Wales v Carr [1902] 1 Ch 860 .… 2.41, 3.21, 40.24, 42.1 Walhampton Estate, Re (1884) 26 Ch D 391 .… 20.46, 31.9 Walia v Michael Naughton Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 1115; [1985] 3 All ER 673 . … 11.7 Walker, Re (1969) 90 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 273 .… 7.4 Walker, Re; Meredith v Walker (1893) 68 LT 517 .… 2.36 Walker v Bradford Old Bank (1884) 12 QBD 511 .… 6.14 Walker v European Electronics Pty Ltd (in liq) (1990) 23 NSWLR 1 .… 5.104 Walker v Giles (1848) 6 CB 662; 136 ER 1407 .… 12.10 Walker v Jones (1866) LR 1 PC 50 .… 16.11, 17.10, 22.38, 32.55 Walker v Linom [1907] 2 Ch 104 .… 24.30, 24.37, 24.45 Walker v Southall (1887) 56 LT 882 .… 11.12 Walker v Walker [1983] Fam 68; [1983] 2 All ER 909 .… 13.49 Walker v Whitmore 262 SW 678 (1924) (Ark) .… 3.8 Walker and Mackenzie v Sachs [1902] QWN 56 .… 21.6, 22.55 Walker Construction Co Ltd, Re [1960] NZLR 523 .… 10.15 Wallace McLean Bawden & Partners Nominees Ltd v Fish [1980] 1 NZLR 540 .… 16.7 Wallace v Evershed [1899] 1 Ch 891 .… 8.10, 8.11, 8.16, 8.19, 21.5 Wallace v Universal Automatic Machines Co [1894] 2 Ch 547 .… 8.2 Wallace v Woodgate (1824) Ry & M 193; 173 ER 990; 1 Car & P 575; 171 ER 1323 .… 2.32 Waller v Hargraves Secured Investments Ltd (2012) 245 CLR 311; 285 ALR 41; 86 ALJR 229 .… 9.12, 19.6 Waller v New Zealand Bloodstock Ltd [2006] 3 NZLR 629 .… 5.4, 5.24, 5.71

Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) [1980] Ch 515; [1980] 2 All ER 92 .… 39.43 Wallingford v Mutual Society (1880) 5 App Cas 685 .… 1.30, 3.15, 3.18, 32.15, 39.55 Wallington v Cook (1878) 47 LJ Ch 508 .… 36.14, 39.43 Wallis, Re; Ex parte Jenks [1902] 1 KB 719 .… 6.15, 26.4 Wallis, Re; Ex parte Lickorish (1890) 25 QBD 176 .… 3.21, 39.10, 40.1, 40.4, 40.28 Wallis v Bastard (1853) 4 De G M & G 251; 43 ER 503 .… 39.61 Wallis v Woodyear (1855) 2 Jur NS 179 .… 30.10 Wallis & Simmonds (Builders) Ltd, Re [1974] 1 All ER 561 .… 1.9, 2.2, 3.36, 3.37, 3.44 Wallman, Re (1981) 60 FLR 453 .… 11.22 Walmsley v Booth (1741) 2 Atk 25; 26 ER 412 .… 13.11 Walmsley v Christchurch City Council [1990] 1 NZLR 199 .… 13.30 Walmsley v Milne (1859) 7 CB (NS) 115; 141 ER 759 .… 1.20, 3.26 Walsh, Re; Ex parte Deputy Federal Comr of Taxation (1982) 42 ALR 727 . … 32.52 Walsh v Derrick (1903) 19 TLR 209 .… 20.18 Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) 21 Ch D 9 .… 19.11, 19.14 Walter and Sullivan Ltd v J Murphy & Sons Ltd [1955] 2 QB 584; [1955] 1 All ER 843 .… 6.5, 6.9, 6.10, 6.11 Walters v Mynn (1850) 14 Jr 341 .… 1.27 Walthamstow Building Society v Davies (1990) 22 HLR 60 .… 12.17, 32.57 Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387 .… 12.20, 24.46, 24.48, 34.6 Wandsworth Norton Solicitors Nominee Co Ltd v Edmonds [1992] 1 NZLR 596; (1992) ANZ ConvR 188 .… 16.39 Wanner v Caruana [1974] 2 NSWLR 301 .… 3.15, 32.14, 32.15

Warburton v Edge (1839) 9 Sim 508; 59 ER 454 .… 2.35, 2.43 Warburton v Hill (1854) Kay 470; 69 ER 199 .… 24.50, 26.23 Warburton v Whiteley (1989) 5 BPR 11628; (1989) NSW ConvR 55-451 .… 3.40, 11.2, 11.4, 13.16, 13.27, 13.30, 13.31 Ward v Carttar (1865) LR 1 Eq 29; 35 Beav 171; 55 ER 860 .… 19.21, 32.48, 32.86 Ward v Duncombe [1893] AC 369 .… 6.7, 6.8, 26.1, 26.2, 26.3, 26.8, 26.11, 26.15, 26.16 Ward v Liddaman (1847) 10 LT OS 225 .… 36.13 Ward v National Bank of New Zealand (1883) 8 App Cas 755 .… 35.8, 35.11 Ward v Royal Exchange Shipping Co; Ex parte Harrison (1887) 58 LT 174 . … 26.24 Ward v Shakeshaft (1860) 1 Drew & Sm 269; 62 ER 381 .… 40.16 Ward v Sharpe (1884) 53 LJ Ch 313 .… 39.3 Warde, Re; Ex parte Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Dabnas Pty Ltd (1984) 55 ALR 395 .… 6.9 Wardle v Oakley (1864) 36 Beav 27 at 30; 55 ER 1066 .… 3.37 Wardley Australia Ltd v McPharlin (1984) 3 BPR 9500 .… 13.38 Waring (Lord) v London and ManchesterAssurance Co Ltd [1935] Ch 310 . … 20.36, 20.37 Waring v Ward (1802) 7 Ves 332; 34 ER 915 .… 17.5, 34.2 Warnboroguh Ltd v Garmite Ltd [2004] 1 P & CR 8 .… 32.16 Warnecke v the Equitable Life Assurance Society [1906] VLR 482 .… 5.4 Warner v Jacob (1882) 20 Ch D 220 .… 20.21, 20.22, 20.36, 20.37, 20.44 Warner v Wellington (1856) 3 Drew 523; 61 ER 1002 .… 3.45 Warner Bros Records Inc v Rollgreen Ltd [1976] QB 430; [1975] 2 All ER 105 .… 6.9, 26.1

Warren, Re; Ex parte Wheeler v The Trustee in Bankruptcy [1938] Ch 725; [1938] 2 All ER 331 .… 6.11 Wasdale, Re; Brittin v Partridge [1899] 1 Ch 163 .… 26.13, 26.17 Waterhouse v Bank of Ireland (1891) 29 LR Ir 384 .… 6.17 Waters v Monarch Fire & Life Assurance Co (1856) 5 E & B 870; 119 ER 705 .… 3.20 Waters v Widdows [1984] VR 503 .… 8.14, 24.3 Watkin v Watson-Smith (1986) Times, 3 July .… 13.12, 13.23 Watkins (deceased), Re; Guardian Trust and Executors Co of NZ Ltd v Watkins [1938] NZLR 847 .… 30.13 Watkins v Coombes (1922) 30 CLR 180 .… 13.20, 13.21 Watkinson v Bernardiston (1726) 2 P Wms 367; 24 ER 769 .… 9.21 Watling v Lewis [1911] 1 Ch 414 .… 17.3 Watson v Brown [1919] NZLR 60 .… 16.7, 32.37 Watson v Duke of Wellington (1830) 1 Russ & M 602; 39 ER 231 .… 6.12 Watson v Eales (1857) 23 Beav 294; 53 ER 115 .… 22.15 Watson v Marston (1853) 4 De GM & G 230; 43 ER 495 .… 21.7, 22.38 Watson v Royal Permanent Building Society (1888) 14 VLR 283 .… 4.5, 24.51 Watson v Waltham (1835) 2 Ad & El 485; 111 ER 188 .… 19.12 Watt v McMahon (1897) 14 WN (NSW) 99 .… 21.23 Watt v State Bank of NSW Ltd [2003] ACTCA 7 .… 13.29 Watts, Re; Smith v Watts (1882) 22 Ch D 5 .… 40.11 Watts v Driscoll [1901] 1 Ch 294 .… 6.18, 11.28 Watts v Symes (1851) 1 De GM & G 240; 42 ER 544 .… 22.16, 31.1, 31.6, 31.7, 36.10 Waugh v Wren (1862) 7 LT 612 .… 35.8 Wayne v Hanham (1851) 9 Hare 62; 68 ER 415 .… 20.8, 21.2, 21.3, 21.11

Wayne v Kusznierz [1973] 2 NSWLR 799 .… 32.39, 38.7 Wayne v Lewis (1855) 3 WR 600 .… 39.55 Webb, Re; Lambert v Still [1894] 1 Ch 73 .… 39.3 Webb v Austin (1844) 7 Man & G 701; 135 ER 282 .… 12.20 Webb v Crosse [1912] 1 Ch 323 .… 32.40, 32.41, 32.55, 40.28 Webb v Herne Bay Commissioners (1870) LR 5 QB 642 .… 11.8 Webb v Hewitt (1857) 3 K & J 438; 69 ER 1181 .… 34.7, 35.8, 35.9 Webb v Hooper [1953] NZLR 111 .… 28.7 Webb v Rorke (1806) 2 Sch & Lef 661 .… 32.19, 39.31, 39.35, 39.45 Webb v Russell (1789) 3 Term Rep 393; 100 ER 639 .… 12.29 Webb v Smith (1885) 30 Ch D 192 .… 2.30, 30.9, 30.10 Webber v Farmer (1718) 4 Bro Parl Cas 170; 2 ER 116 .… 1.25, 1.26 Webber v Hunt (1815) 1 Madd 13; 56 ER 6 .… 39.39 Webber v Smith (1689) 2 Vern 103; 23 ER 676 .… 37.11 Websdale v S & J D Investments Pty Ltd (1991) 24 NSWLR 573 .… 17.9, 20.15 Webster v Jones (1844) 6 I Eq R 142 .… 22.45 Webster v Patteson (1884) 25 Ch D 626 .… 22.37 Webster v Power (1868) LR 2 PC 69 .… 3.27 Webster v Webster (1862) 31 Beav 393; 54 ER 1191 .… 26.15, 26.18 Weddell v J A Pearce & Major [1988] Ch 26; [1987] 3 All ER 624 .… 6.7, 6.9, 6.11, 6.14 Weiland, Re (1945) 13 ABC 220 .… 4.10 Weiner v Harris [1910] 1 KB 285 .… 6.22 Welch v National Cycle Works Co (1886) 55 LT 673 .… 39.41 Weld v Petre [1929] 1 Ch 33 .… 32.89

Weld-Blundell v Synott [1940] 2 KB 107; [1940] 2 All ER 580 .… 20.46, 39.3, 39.21 Welles v Middleton (1784) 1 Cox 112; 29 ER 1086 .… 42.2 Wellesley v Wellesley (1839) 4 My & Cr 561; 41 ER 213 .… 2.7 Wellington & Manawatu Railway Co Ltd v Hazelden (1899) 18 NZLR 278 . … 4.29 Wells v Kilpin (1874) LR 18 Eq 298 .… 32.26 Wells v Mitchell [1942] VLR 55 .… 29.3 Wells, Re; Swinburne-Hanham v Howard [1933] Ch 29 .… 1.15, 22.18, 32.2, 32.24 Welsh Development Agency v Export Finance Co Ltd [1991] BCLC 936 .… 6.5 Welsh Development Agency v Export Finance Co Ltd [1992] BCLC 148 .… 1.34, 1.39, 6.5, 6.20, 11.39 Welsh Irish Ferries Ltd, Re [1986] Ch 471 .… 6.5, 6.11, 9.19, 11.39 Welsh v Nilsson [1961] NZLR 644 .… 39.2 Wenham v General Credits Ltd; General Credits Ltd v Wenham (1989) 18 NSWLR 570 .… 19.37, 39.2 Weniger’s Policy, Re [1910] 2 Ch 291 .… 6.15, 25.7, 26.1, 26.13, 26.17 Wentworth, Re (1915) 15 SR (NSW) 384 .… 11.13 West v AGC (Advances) Ltd (1986) 5 NSWLR 610 .… 13.36 West v Diprose [1900] 1 Ch 337 .… 20.48 West v Jones (1851) 1 Sim (NS) 205; 61 ER 79 .… 40.7 West v Public Trustee [1942] SASR 109 .… 13.18 West v Read (1913) 13 SR (NSW) 575 .… 4.29 West v Reid (1843) 2 Hare 249; 67 ER 104 .… 24.8 West v Williams [1899] 1 Ch 132 .… 1.9, 24.25, 25.12, 25.13, 26.1, 26.4 West Bromwich Building Society v Bullock [1936] 1 All ER 887 .… 17.3

West Bromwich Building Society v Wilkinson [2005] 1 WLR 2303 .… 16.29 West London Commercial Bank v Reliance Permanent Building Society (1885) 29 Ch D 954 .… 20.45, 24.32, 25.4, 42.9 West of England and South Wales Bank v Nickolls (1877) 6 Ch D 613 .… 33.11 West Riding of Yorkshire Permanent Building Society, Re; Ex parte Pullman (1890) 45 Ch D 463 .… 32.33 West St Properties Pty Ltd v Jamison [1974] 2 NSWLR 435 .… 18.14 Westbourne Park Building Society v Levermore [1955] CLY 1703 .… 12.26 Western Bank Ltd v Schindler [1977] Ch 1; [1976] 2 All ER 393 .… 3.7, 16.1, 19.12, 19.15, 19.16, 19.34, 20.6 Western Wagon & Property Co v West [1892] 1 Ch 271 .… 1.41, 3.45, 6.12 Westerton, Re [1919] 2 Ch 104 .… 7.3, 6.11 Westfield Holdings Ltd v Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd (1992) 32 NSWLR 194 .… 1.28, 1.38, 20.38, 2.11, 32.12, 32.16 Westhead v Riley (1883) 25 Ch D 413 .… 7.11 Westminster Bank Ltd v Residential Properties Improvement Co Ltd [1938] Ch 639; [1938] 2 All ER 374 .… 21.15, 22.5, 33.3 Westminster City Council v Haymarket Publishing Ltd [1981] 2 All ER 555; [1981] 1 WLR 677 .… 7.1, 19.39, 37.5 Westminster Properties Pty Ltd v Comco Constructions Pty Ltd (1991) 5 WAR 191 .… 16.8 Westmorland Green and Blue Slate Co v Feilden [1891] 3 Ch 15 .… 36.15 Weston v Carling Construction Pty Ltd (2000) 175 ALR 202; 35 ACSR 100; [2000] NSWSC 693 .… 18.15 Weston v Davidson [1882] WN 28 .… 21.15 Westover v Chapman (1844) 1 Coll 177; 63 ER 372 .… 11.14 Westpac Banking Corp, Re [1987] 1 Qd R 300 .… 4.29

Westpac Banking Corp v Adelaide Bank Ltd [2005] NSWSC 517; (2005) 12 BPR 22,919 .… 25.7, 25.8, 25.12, 25.13 Westpac Banking Corp Ltd v Kingsland (1991) 26 NSWLR 700 .… 12.29, 12.31, 19.5 Westpac Banking Corp v Cronin [1991] ACL Rep 45 NSW 3 .… 3.40 Westpac Banking Corp v Daydream Island Pty Ltd [1985] 2 Qd R 330 .… 16.4, 16.7, 30.14, 40.1, 40.2 Westpac Banking Corp v Hodgson Pastoral Co (Torry Plains) (1995) 7 BPR 14,540 .… 9.12 Westpac Banking Corp v Kingsland (1991) 26 NSWLR 700 .… 20.21, 20.22, 20.23 Westpac Banking Corp v Mousellis (1986) 37 NTR 1 .… 20.21, 41.9 Westpac Banking Corp v Sansom (1994) 6 BPR 13,790 .… 3.49, 4.19, 4.20, 11.3, 13.30, 13.44 Westpoint Finance Pty Ltd v Chocolate Factory Apartments Ltd [2002] NSWCA 287 .… 33.7, 39.2, 39.2 Westzinthus, Re (1833) 5 B & Ad 817; 110 ER 992 .… 30.13 Wetherell, Ex parte (1804) 11 Ves 398; 32 ER 1141 .… 3.38 Wetherell v Collins (1818) 3 Madd 255; 56 ER 502 .… 22.2, 33.14, 40.15 WF Le Cornu Ltd, Re [1931] SASR 425 .… 11.39 WFM Motors Pty Ltd v Maydwell [1994] ACL Rep 295 NSW 1; (1994) 6 BPR 13,381 .… 2.30, 2.49 Wharton v Greville (1856) 1 VLT 76 .… 27.10 Wheatley v Bastow (1855) 7 De GM & G261; 3 WR 540 .… 26.23 Whenuapai Joinery (1988) Ltd v Trust Bank Central Ltd [1994] 1 NZLR 406 .… 1.20 Whereat v Duff [1972] 2 NSWLR 147 .… 13.20 Whereat v Duff (1973) 1 ALR 363 .… 13.20 Wherly, Re Ex parte Hirst (1879) 11 Ch D 278 .… 23.3, 23.5

Whetham v Davey (1885) 30 Ch D 574 .… 6.18 Whicker v Pettiford (NSWSC, Macready J, 1 August 2005) .… 21.11 Whild v GE Mortgage Solutions Ltd (2012) VConvR 58-816 .… 20.11, 20.14, 20.15, 20.16 Whistler, Re (1887) 35 Ch D 561 .… 11.18 Whitaker v Wright (1843) 2 Hare 310; 67 ER 128 .… 39.11 Whitbread, Ex parte (1812) 19 Ves 209; 34 ER 496 .… 3.43 Whitbread v Jordan (1835) 1 Y & C Ex 303; 160 ER 123 .… 24.15 Whitbread v Lyall (1856) 8 De GM & G 383; 44 ER 437 .… 22.46 Whitbread v Smith (1854) 3 De GM & G 727; 46 ER 286 .… 39.25 Whitbread & Co Ltd v Watt [1902] 1 Ch 835 .… 2.9, 2.15 Whitbread plc v USB Corporate Services Ltd (2000) 35 EG 136 .… 39.42, 39.50 White, Re (2006) 352 BR 633 .… 5.81 White, Re; Ex parte Goggs (1866) 1 QSCR 149 .… 20.40 White v British Empire Mutual Life Assurance Co (1868) LR 7 Eq 394 .… 6.15 White v City of London Brewery Co (1889) 42 Ch D 237 .… 19.35, 39.10, 40.4, 40.25 White v Elder, Smith & Co Ltd [1934] SASR 56 .… 3.55 White v Hunter (1868) 5 WW & a’B (E) 178 .… 27.1 White v Metcalf [1903] 2 Ch 567 .… 18.16 White v Morris (1852) 11 CB 1015; 138 ER 778 .… 3.55 White v Naylon (1886) 11 App Cas 171 .… 27.1 White v Pacific Acceptance Corp (1961) 62 SR(NSW) 60 .… 33.8 White v Parnther (1829) 1 Knapp 179; 12 ER 288 .… 32.26 White v Simmons (1871) 6 Ch App 555 .… 23.3

White and Smith’s Contract, Re [1896] 1 Ch 637 .… 24.19 White Rose Cottage, Re [1965] Ch 940; [1965] 1 All ER 11 .… 3.36, 3.40, 20.50 Whitehaven Joint Stock Banking Co v Read (1886) 54 LT 360 .… 11.33 Whitehorn Bros v Davison [1911] 1 KB 463 .… 12.21 Whiteley v Delaney [1914] AC 132 .… 3.33, 36.7, 36.10 Whitely, Re (1886) 33 Ch D 347 .… 2.18 Whiteman v Hawkins (1878) 4 CPD 13 .… 42.4, 42.6 Whitfield v Fausset (1750) 1 Ves Sen 387; 27 ER 1097 .… 24.8 Whitley v Challis [1892] 1 Ch 64 .… 1.23, 39.33 Whitmore v Empson (1857) 23 Beav 313; 53 ER 123 .… 1.21 Whitting, Re; Ex parte Hall (1879) 10 Ch D 615 .… 1.40, 3.45, 6.13 Whitton v ACN 003 266 886 Pty Ltd (1996) 42 NSWLR 123 .… 8.13 Whitworth v Gaugain (1844) 3 Hare 416; 67 ER 444 .… 7.8, 24.49 Whitworth v Gaugain (1846) 1 Ph 728; 41 ER 809 .… 7.8, 24.49 Wickenden v Rayson (1855) 6 De GM & G210; 43 ER 1212 .… 21.24 Wickens, Ex parte [1898] 1 QB 543 .… 32.6 Wickens v Townshend (1830) 1 Russ & My 361; 39 ER 140 .… 2.30 Wicklow Enterprises Pty Ltd v Doysal Pty Ltd (1986) 45 SASR 247 .… 4.18 Wicks v Bennett (1921) 30 CLR 80 .… 4.15 Wigg v Wigg (1739) 1 Atk 384; 26 ER 244 .… 24.11 Wight v Haberdan Pty Ltd [1984] 3 NSWLR 280 .… 1.41, 8.1 Wigsell v Wigsell (1825) 2 Sim & St 364; 57 ER 385 .… 36.5 Wilberforce, Re [1915] 1 Ch 94 .… 32.77 Wilcox & Co, Re; Hilder v Wilcox & Co [1903] WN 64 .… 22.5 Wilcox Mofflin Ltd v Commissioner of Stamp Duties [1978] 1 NSWLR 341 .… 1.7

Wildash, Re; Ex parte Muskin (1877) 5 QSCR 46 .… 4.24 Wilde, Re; Ex parte Daglish (1873) 8 Ch App 1072 .… 1.19 Wilde v Australian Trade Equipment Co Pty Ltd (1980) 145 CLR 590 .… 11.43 Wilde v Gibson 1 HL Cas 632; 9 ER 897 .… 13.40 Wildy v Mid-Hants Rly Co (1868) 16 WR 409 .… 16.1 Wilkes v Bodington (1707) 2 Vern 599; 23 ER 991 .… 24.4, 25.4 Wilkes v Collin (1869) LR 8 Eq 338 .… 36.4 Wilkes v Saunion (1877) 7 Ch D 188 .… 16.7, 40.23 Wilkes v Spooner [1911] 2 KB 473 .… 24.7 Wilkes v Steward (1801) G Coop 6; 35 ER 457 .… 11.14 Wilkin v Deans (1886) 6 NZLR 425 .… 31.11 Wilkinson v ASB Bank Ltd [1998] 1 NZLR 674 .… 13.28 Wilkinson v Beale (1823) 1 LJ OS Ch 89 .… 22.22 Wilkinson v Grant (1856) 18 CB 319; 139 ER 1392 .… 40.24 Wilkinson v Hall (1837) 3 Bing (NC) 508; 132 ER 506 .… 12.10, 16.32, 19.7 Wilkinson v Joberns (1873) LR 16 Eq 14 .… 11.6 Wilkinson v Spooner [1957] Tas SR 121 .… 4.14 Wilkinson v Sterne (1744) 9 Mod Rep 427;88 ER 551 .… 32.53 Wilkinson v Wilkinson (1819) 3 Swan 515; 36 ER 958 .… 1.34, 1.39 Willcox v Terrell (1878) 3 Ex D 323 .… 13.49 Willes v Greenhill (1860) 29 Beav 376 (No 1); 29 Beav 387 (No 2) .… 26.18 Willes v Greenhill (1861) 4 De GF & J 147; 45 ER 1139 .… 26.16 Willes v Levett (1847) 1 De G & Sm 392; 63 ER 1119 .… 16.7 Willett v Birt [1921] VLR 115 .… 20.15 William Brandt’s Sons & Co v Dunlop Rubber Co Ltd [1905] AC 454 .…

1.34, 6.4, 6.9, 6.11 William Hall (Contractors) Ltd (in liq), Re [1967] 2 All ER 1150 .… 23.3, 23.10, 32.53 Williams, Re; Cunliffe v Williams [1915] 1 Ch 450 .… 29.4 Williams, Re; Ex parte The Official Assignee (1899) 17 NZLR 712 .… 7.10 Williams v Allsup (1861) 10 CB (NS) 417; 142 ER 514 .… 2.27 Williams v Atlantic Assurance Co Ltd [1933] 1 KB 81 .… 6.5 Williams v Bayley (1866) LR 1 HL 200 .… 13.23 Williams v Bosanquet (1819) 1 Bod & Bing 238;129 ER 714 .… 3.3 Williams v Bullmore (1863) 33 LJ Ch 461 .… 13.46 Williams v Burlington Investments Ltd (1977) 121 Sol Jo 424 .… 1.38, 2.4, 2.7, 3.46 Williams v Craddock (1831) 4 Sim 313; 58 ER 117 .… 24.49 Williams v Fleetwood Holidays Ltd (1974) 41 DLR (3d) 636 .… 13.45 Williams v Hathaway (1877) 6 Ch D 544 .… 17.3 Williams v Hensman (1861) 1 John & H 546;70 ER 862 .… 11.4 Williams v Jones (1911) 55 Sol Jo 500 .… 40.17 Williams v Lloyd (1934) 50 CLR 341 .… 13.5 Williams v Lucas (1789) 2 Cox 160; 30 ER 73 .… 1.34 Williams v Morgan [1906] 1 Ch 804 .… 16.5, 32.8, 32.9 Williams v Owen (1840) 5 My & Cr 303; 41 ER 386 .… 1.27, 1.29 Williams v Owen (1843) 13 Sim 597; 60 ER 232 .… 25.5 Williams v Price (1824) 1 Sim & St 581; 57 ER 229 .… 6.19, 19.34, 19.37 Williams v Sorrell (1799) 4 Ves 389; 31 ER 198 .… 14.2 Williams v State Bank of New South Wales (1993) 6 BPR 97,485 .… 1.40, 11.2, 13.26 Williams v State Bank of New South Wales[1993] ACL Rep 220 NSW 15 .

… 3.8 Williams v Stern (1879) 5 QBD 409 .… 16.7 Williams v Thorp (1828) 2 Sim 257; 57 ER 785 .… 26.21 Williams v Turner [2009] 1 Qd R 296 .… 16.37 Williams v Wellingborough Borough Council[1975] 3 All ER 462; [1973] 1 WLR 1327 .… 20.8, 20.40, 32.11 Williams v Williams (1881) 17 Ch D 437 .… 24.20 Williams v Williams-Wynn (1915) 84 LJ Ch 801 .… 36.5 Williams & Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Barnes [1981] Com LR 205 .… 17.9 Williams & Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland [1979] Ch 312; [1979] 2 All ER 697 . … 24.1 Williams & Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland [1981] AC 487; [1980] 2 All ER 408 .… 3.50, 4.20, 13.44, 19.12, 24.1, 24.13, 24.21 Williamson v Barbour (1877) 9 Ch D 529 .… 3.49, 39.3 Williamson v Diab [1988] 1 Qd R 210 .… 3.49, 13.46 Williamson v Loonstra (1973) 34 DLR (3d) 275 .… 30.13 Willis v Palmer (1859) 7 CB NS 340; 141 ER 847 .… 11.7 Willmot v London Celluloid Co (1886) 34 Ch D 147 .… 8.16 Willoughby v Willoughby (1756) 1 Term Rep 763; 99 ER 1366 .… 24.25, 25.4, 25.11 Wills, Ex parte (1790) 1 Ves 162; 30 ER 281 .… 1.40, 2.7 Wills v Ogier (1880) 2 ALT 1 .… 33.23 Wilmot v Alton (1897) 1 QB 17 .… 6.23 Wilmot v Pike (1845) 5 Hare 14; 67 ER 808 .… 25.4, 26.11 Willmott Forests Ltd, Re (recs and mgrs apptd) (in liq) (2012) 91 ACSR 182 .… 23.14 Wilson, Ex parte (1813) 2 Ves & B 252; 35 ER 315 .… 39.14 Wilson, Ex parte; Re Bavister (1925) 25 SR(NSW) 375 .… 3.23, 4.29, 12.11

Wilson, Re [1916] 1 Ch 220 .… 29.2 Wilson, Re; Ex parte Official Receiver in Bankruptcy (1890) 25 QBD 27 .… 1.29 Wilson, Re; Wilson v Wilson [1908] 1 Ch 839 .… 29.4 Wilson v Brown (1896) 7 QLJ 16 .… 21.6, 22.55 Wilson v Cluer (1840) 3 Beav 136; 49 ER 53 .… 39.37, 39.38, 39.39, 39.40 Wilson v Dunn (1994) 15 ACSR 156 .… 11.40 Wilson v Ferrier (1985) Conveyancing Service (NSW) [92262] .… 20.6 Wilson v Hart (1866) LR 1 Ch App 463 .… 19.40 Wilson v Holland [1915] VLR 46 .… 25.7, 25.12, 25.13 Wilson v Kelland [1910] 2 Ch 306 .… 5.79, 8.18, 24.20 Wilson v Kelly [1957] VR 147 .… 12.18, 19.3 Wilson v Metcalfe (1818) 3 Madd 45; 56 ER 426 .… 40.11 Wilson v Metcalfe (1826) 1 Russ 530; 38 ER 204 .… 39.36, 39.40 Wilson v Queen’s Club [1891] 3 Ch 522 .… 12.28, 12.31 Wilson v Tooker (1714) 5 Bro Parl Cas 193; 2 ER 622 .… 20.3 Wilson v Walton and Kirkdale Permanent Building Society (1903) 19 TLR 408 .… 32.88 Wilson v Ward [1930] 2 DLR 433 .… 1.25 Wilson v Wilson (1872) LR 14 Eq 32 .… 9.25 Wilson Tyres Pty Ltd (1992) 7 ACSR 318 .… 11.43 Wilton v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1974] 2 NSWLR 96 .… 18.10 Wilton v Farnworth (1948) 76 CLR 646 .… 13.32 Wiltshire v Marshall (1866) 14 LT 396 .… 13.30 Wiltshire v Rabbits (1844) 14 Sim 76; 60 ER 285 .… 26.11 Wily v Endeavour Health Care Services Pty Ltd (No 5) (2003) 11 BPR 21,081 .… 1.25

Wily v Endeavour Health Care Services Pty Ltd (No 5) [2003] NSWCA 321; (2003) 12 BPR 22, 247 .… 1.25, 1.27, 1.29, 32.12, 32.16 Wily v Rothschild Australia Ltd (1999) 47 NSWLR 555 .… 6.20 Wily v St George Partnership Bank Ltd (1999) 84 FCR 423; 161 ALR 1; 30 ACSR 204 .… 5.35, 8.11 Windella (NSW) Pty Ltd v Hughes (1999) 49 NSWLR 158 .… 4.7, 4.24 Windle, Re; Ex parte Trustee of Bankrupt v Windle [1975] 3 All ER 987 .… 17.5 Winn v Burgess (1986) Times, 8 July .… 6.23 Winstone Ltd v Bourne [1978] 1 NZLR 94 .… 35.8 Winter v Lord Anson (1827) 3 Russ 488; 38 ER 658 .… 2.11, 2.13, 36.13 Winter, Re [1930] NZGLR 23 .… 29.2 Winterbottom v Tayloe (1854) 2 Drew 279; 61 ER 726 .… 33.2 Wisden v Wisden (1854) 2 Sm & G 396; 65 ER 452 .… 30.3 Wise, Re; Ex parte Mercer (1886) 17 QBD 290 .… 13.5, 13.6 Wise v Landsell [1921] 1 Ch 420 .… 6.16 Wise v Whitburn [1924] 1 Ch 460 .… 11.16, 11.17 Wise v Wise (1845) 2 Jo & Lat 403 .… 26.15, 40.3 Wiseman v Westland (1826) 1 Y & J 117; 148 ER 610 .… 3.31 Wiskich (DM & BP) v Drivehard Pty Ltd (SC (NSW), Giles J, 13 December 1993, unreported) .… 7.14 Withall v Nixon (1885) 28 Ch D 413 .… 22.49 Witham, Re [1922] 2 Ch 413 .… 16.31 Withers LLP v Langbar International Ltd [2012] 2 All ER 616 .… 2.35 Withington v Tate (1869) 4 Ch App 288 .… 32.49, 39.13 Withrington v Banks (1725) Cas temp King 30; 25 ER 205 .… 16.14, 42.21 Woking Urban District Council (Basingstoke Canal) Act, Re 1911 [1914] 1 Ch 300 .… 21.14

Wolff v Vanderzee (1869) 17 WR 547 .… 20.27 Wolff v Vanderzee (1869) 20 LT 350 .… 20.21 Wollam v Barclays Bank plc [1988] EGCS 22; 18 Fam Law (Eng) 381 .… 3.5, 11.3 Wolmershausen, Re (1890) 62 LT 541; 38 WR 537 .… 35.7, 35.8 Wolmershausen v Gullick [1893] 2 Ch 514 .… 30.2 Wombat Nominees Pty Ltd v De Tullio (1990) 98 ALR 307 .… 16.8, 18.2, 19.2, 19.8, 20.15, 21.5 Wongala Holdings Pty Ltd v Mulinglebar Pty Ltd (1994) 6 BPR 13,527 .… 20.15 Wonham v Machin (1870) LR 10 Eq 447 .… 21.16, 40.20 Wontner v Wright (1829) 2 Sim 543; 57 ER 890 .… 40.12 Wood, Re [1949] St R Qd 17 .… 30.13 Wood v Downes (1811) 18 Ves 120; 34 ER 263>.… 42.2 Wood v Martin (1877) 47 LJQB 191 .… 20.17 Wood v Smallpiece [1942] Ch 190; [1942] 1 All ER 252 .… 22.49 Wood v Surr (1854) 19 Beav 551; 52 ER 465 .… 33.6, 33.25 Wood v Wheater (1882) 22 Ch D 281 .… 22.17, 22.49 Wood v Williams (1819) 4 Madd 186; 56 ER 676 .… 22.2, 33.14 Woodman v Higgins (1850) 14 Jur 846 .… 32.82 Woodroffes (Musical Instruments) Ltd, Re [1986] Ch 366; [1985] 2 All ER 908 .… 8.18, 8.19, 8.20, 24.3 Woods, Re; Ex parte Ditton (1876) 1 Ch D 557 .… 23.5 Woods v Commonwealth Bank of Australia(1990) 5 BPR 11521 .… 20.38 Woods v Oliver [1880] WN Eng 51 .… 39.6 Woodstead Finance Ltd v Petrou [1986] FTLR 267 .… 13.23 Woodstock, Re (a bankrupt) (19 November 1979, unreported) .… 30.7

Woodworth v Conroy [1976] QB 884 .… 2.28 Woolwich Building Society v Brown [1996] CLC 625 .… 39.21 Woolley v Colman (1882) 21 Ch D 169 .… 21.14, 21.15, 21.21, 21.23 Woolley v Drage (1795) 2 Anst 551; 145 ER 964 .… 19.39, 39.45, 39.57 Woolstencroft v Woolstencroft (1860) 2 DeGF & J 347; 45 ER 655 .… 29.3 Woolston v Ross [1900] 1 Ch 788 .… 12.9 Woolwich Equitable Building Society v Preston [1938] Ch 129 .… 3.23, 12.11 Worcester, Re; Ex parte Agra Bank (1868) 3 Ch App 555 .… 26.18 World Tech Pty Ltd v Yellowin Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 5 BPR 11729 .… 3.36, 3.40 Wormald v Maitland (1866) 3 LJ Ch 69 .… 25.13 Worrall v Harford (1802) 8 Ves 4; 32 ER 250 .… 2.42 Worrell v Issitch [2001] 1 Qd R 570 .… 21.10, 21.12, 21.21 Worrell v Power & Power (1993) 118 ALR 237 .… 2.48, 2.49 Worthington v Abbott [1910] 1 Ch 588 .… 17.10 Worthington & Co Ltd v Abbott [1910] 1 Ch 588 .… 17.9 Wortley v Birkhead (1754) 2 Ves Sen 571; 28 ER 364 .… 24.4, 25.4, 25.11 Wossidlo v Catt (1934) 52 CLR 301 .… 2.11, 2.13 Wotten v Copeland (1823) 7 Johnson (Ch) 140 .… 11.6 Wragg v Denham (1836) 2 Y & C Ex 117; 160 ER 335 .… 19.35, 19.36, 19.37, 39.12 Wrexham, Re; Mold & Connah’s Quay Railway Co [1899] 1 Ch 440 .… 11.9, 42.19 Wright, Ex parte (1812) 19 Ves 255; 34 ER 513 .… 3.40, 21.3, 21.9 Wright, Re; Ex parte Landay [1949] Ch 729;[1949] 2 All ER 605 .… 20.8 Wright v Carter [1903] 1 Ch 27 .… 42.2

Wright v Haberdan [1984] 2 NSWLR 280 .… 3.45 Wright v Kirby (1857) 23 Beav 463; 53 ER 182 .… 40.20 Wright v New Zealand Farmers Co-operative Association of Canterbury Ltd [1939] AC 439; [1939] 2 All ER 701 .… 20.6, 20.41 Wright v Pepin [1954] 2 All ER 52; [1954] 1 WLR 635 .… 16.32, 16.33, 16.34, 19.12 Wright v Registrar of Titles [1979] Qd R 523 .… 4.5 Wrights Hardware Pty Ltd v Evans (1988) 13 ACLR 631 .… 18.7 Wrightson v McArthur and Hutchisons (1919) Ltd [1921] 2 KB 807 .… 1.11 Wrigley v Gill [1905] 1 Ch 241 .… 19.33, 32.53, 39.35, 39.37, 39.50, 39.55 Wrigley v Gill [1906] 1 Ch 165 .… 32.51 Wrixon v Vize (1842) 2 Dr & War 192 .… 39.3, 39.8 Wrout v Dawes (1858) 25 Beav 369; 53 ER 678 .… 2.10, 32.52 WT & ME Peterie Pty Ltd, Re (1981) 6 ACLR 65 .… 11.39 Wulff v Jay (1872) LR 7 QB 556 .… 3.25, 16.2 Wyatt v Wyatt (1916) 16 SR (NSW) 455 .… 29.3 Wyatt, Re; Ex parte Adams (1837) 3 Mont& A 157 .… 23.7 Wyatt, Re; White v Ellis [1892] 1 Ch 188 .… 26.2, 26.11, 26.16, 26.17 Wyke v Rogers (1852) 1 De G M & G 408; 42 ER 609 .… 35.8 Wylde v Radford (1863) 33 LJ Ch 51 .… 3.42 Wylie v Carlyon [1922] 1 Ch 51 .… 8.1, 42.18 Wyllie v Pollen (1863) 3 De GJ & Sm 596; 46 ER 767 .… 25.7 Wynne v Robinson (1830) 4 Bli NS 27; 5 ER 10 .… 13.1 Wynne v Styan (1847) 2 Ph 303; 41 ER 959 .… 16.39 Wythe v Henniker (1833) 2 My & K 635; 39 ER 1087 .… 30.3 Wythes v Lee (1855) 3 Drew 396; 61 ER 954 .… 2.15

Y Yango Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v First Chicago (1978) 139 CLR 410 .… 13.45 Yanner v Eaton (1999) 201 CLR 351 .… 5.9 Yarrangah Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd (1999) 7 BPR 17,061 .… 19.11, 20.37, 21.11 Yates, Re; Batcheldor v Yates (1888) 38 Ch D 112 .… 3.26, 20.6 Yates v Aston (1843) 4 QB 182; 114 ER 866 .… 3.13, 17.4 Yates v Cox (1868) 17 WR 20 .… 26.15 Yates v Hambly (1742) 2 Atk 237; 26 ER 547 .… 22.6 Yates v Hambly (1742) 2 Atk 360; 26 ER 618 .… 22.17, 39.39 Yates v Plumbe (1854) 2 Sm & G 174; 65 ER 354 .… 32.80 Yazgi v Permanent Custodians Ltd [2007] NSWCA 240; 13 BPR 24,567 .… 4.12, 4.17 Yeomans v Williams (1865) LR 1 Eq 184 .… 34.2, 34.6, 35.1 Yeovil Glove Co Ltd, Re [1965] Ch 148; [1964] 2 All ER 849 .… 8.24 Yerkey v Jones (1939) 63 CLR 649 .… 3.8, 11.2, 13.17, 13.21, 13.22, 13.25, 13.26, 13.27, 13.41 Yianni v Edwin Evans & Sons [1982] QB 438 .… 37.5 York v Stone (1709) 1 Salk 158; 91 ER 146 .… 11.4 York Union Banking Co v Artley (1879) 11 Ch D 205 .… 21.21 Yorkshire Bank plc v Hall [1999] 1 WLR 1713; [1999] 1 All ER 879 .… 1.16, 3.25, 16.2, 20.21, 20.23 Yorkshire Bank plc v Tinsley [2004] 1 WLR 2380; [2004] 3 All ER 411 .… 13.3 Yorkshire Banking Co v Mullan (1887) 35 Ch D 125 .… 12.5, 19.13, 39.18 Yorkshire Woolcombers Association Ltd, Re; Houldsworth v Yorkshire Woolcombers Association Ltd [1903] 2 Ch 284 .… 5.35, 5.117, 8.12, 8.13, 8.15

Young, Re [1955] St R Qd 254 .… 18.23 Young, Re; Ex parte Jones [1896] 2 QB 484 .… 6.22 Young v ACN 081 162 512 [2005] NSWSC 139 .… 23.6 Young v Clarey [1948] Ch 191; [1948] 1 All ER 197 .… 4.40, 19.43, 20.46, 21.13, 32.85 Young v English (1843) 7 Beav 10; 49 ER 965 .… 2.35, 2.42, 39.21 Young v Kitchin (1878) 3 Ex D 127 .… 7.4 Young v Matthew Hall Mechanical & Electrical Engineers Pty Ltd (1988) 13 ACLR 399 .… 1.9, 1.37 Young v Queensland Trustees Ltd (1956) 99 CLR 560 .… 17.8 Yourell v Hibernian Bank Ltd [1918] AC 372 .… 39.10 Youyang Pty Ltd v Minter Ellison Morris Fletcher (2003) 212 CLR 484 .… 42.6 YZ Finance Co Pty Ltd v Cummings (1964) 109 CLR 395 .… 1.4 Z Zamet v Hyman [1961] 3 All ER 933; [1961] 1 WLR 1442 .… 13.18, 13.23, 13.24 Zanzoul v Westpac Banking Corp (1995) 6 BPR 14,142 .… 19.23 Zhou v Kousal and the Sheriff for the State of Victoria [2012] VSC 187 .… 20.40 Zell v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1998] NSW Conv R 55-835 .… 3.8 Zielinski v Gordon [1983] 1 WWR 414 .… 33.11 Zegalski, Re (1972) 31 DLR (3d) 766 .… 5.3 ZL v R (2010) 208 A Crim R 325 .… 5.4 Zoneff v Elcom Credit Union Ltd (1990) ATPR 41-009 .… 13.35

Table of Statutes References are to paragraphs Co-operative Scheme Legislation European Convention of Human Rights .… 20.6 Co-operative Scheme Legislation Consumer Credit Code .… 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 32.6, 32.15, 32.40 s 5 .… 9.2 s 6 .… 9.2 s 7 .… 9.2 s 8 .… 9.2 s 14 .… 9.2 s 15 .… 9.2 s 40 .… 9.3 s 41 .… 9.3 s 43 .… 9.3 s 44 .… 9.3 s 45 .… 9.3 s 46 .… 9.3 s 47 .… 9.3 s 48 .… 9.3 s 80 .… 9.4 s 80(6) .… 9.4

s 91 .… 9.3 s 92 .… 9.3 s 161(2) .… 9.4 National Credit Code .… 5.127, 18.3 s 88(2) .… 18.3 s 88(4) .… 18.3 National Scheme Laws Corporations Law .… 8.18, 23.2 s 165(1) .… 8.18 s 165(2) .… 8.18 s 1049 .… 8.1 Commonwealth Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 .… 13.50 Acts Interpretation Act 1901 s 13 .… 5.5 s 15AB(1) .… 5.5 s 15AB(2) .… 5.5 Air Navigation Act 1920 .… 9.29 Australian Consumer Law s 18 .… 38.5 s 20–22 .… 38.5 s 227 .… 38.5 s 238 .… 38.5 Banking Act 1959 .… 5.51 Bankruptcy Act 1966 .… 5.111, 6.1, 11.22,13.1, 13.5, 16.16, 23.2, 23.10, 23.11, 23.14, s 5823.2

s 5(1) .… 23.4, 26.4 s 55 .… 5.112 s 56E .… 5.112 s 57 .… 5.112 s 58 .… 11.22, 14.14, 23.3 s 60 .… 23.3 s 64ZA(5) .… 23.6 s 74A .… 35.10 s 75 .… 35.10 s 75(2) .… 35.10 s 81 .… 2.47 s 82–94 .… 23.2 s 82(3B) .… 3.17, 23.10, 39.46 s 88 .… 3.17, 23.10 s 89 .… 3.17, 23.10 s 90 .… 23.9 s 90(2) .… 23.1, 23.9 s 90(3) .… 23.9 s 90(4) .… 23.9 s 90(5) .… 23.9 s 91 .… 23.12 s 91(2) .… 23.13 s 91(3) .… 23.13 s 91(4) .… 23.12 s 92 .… 23.9 s 93 .… 23.9

s 94 .… 23.9 s 96 .… 23.2 s 108 .… 10.15 s 120 .… 13.5 s 120 ff .… 13.4 s 121 .… 13.5, 13.8 s 122 .… 8.23 s 126 .… 11.22, 26.6 s 133 .… 23.14 s 133(4) .… 23.14 s 133(5) .… 23.14 s 133(5A) .… 23.14 s 133(9) .… 23.14 s 133(10) .… 23.14 s 135(1)(da) .… 11.23 s 136 .… 23.12, 32.6, 32.23 s 141 .… 23.8 s 149 .… 23.16 s 149D .… 23.16 s 153(1) .… 23.17 s 153(3) .… 23.17 s 153(4) .… 35.10 s 244–252C .… 23.11 s 302 .… 23.3, 23.5 Pt XI .… 23.11 Civil Aviation Act 1988 .… 9.29

Companies Act .… 6.16, 11.33 Companies Code 1981 .… 11.33 Competition and Consumer Act 2010 .… 13.17,20.38, 32.12, 32.14, 38.5 s 20 .… 13.35 s 21 .… 13.35 s 21(1) .… 13.35 s 21(3) .… 13.35 s 47 .… 32.9 s 60 .… 19.31 s 87 .… 38.5 Pt 2.2 .… 13.35 Sch 2 .… 38.5 Constitution s 109 .… 9.16 Copyright Act 1968 .… 6.25 s 133(4) .… 37.14 s 196 .… 6.25 Corporations Act 2001 .… 1.2, 1.11, 2.2, 2.39,3.53, 5.105, 5.112, 5.115, 5.116, 6.16, 8.1,8.2, 8.4, 8.9, 8.18, 11.5, 11.40, 11.41, 16.16,23.2, 34.3, 35.10 s 9 .… 5.105, 8.1, 8.9, 8.25, 18.11, 18.12,41.6, 41.7, 42.11 s 9(a) .… 41.6 s 9(b) .… 41.6 s 9(c) .… 41.6 s 9(d) .… 41.6 s 9(e) .… 41.6 s 9(i) .… 41.6

s 9(m) .… 41.6 s 52A .… 11.34 s 57A .… 18.11 s 58AA .… 18.11 s 66A .… 18.11 s 124 .… 11.33 s 124(1)(b) .… 8.2, 32.9, 36.9 s 125 .… 11.33 s 126 .… 5.39, 11.34 s 127 .… 5.39, 11.34 s 128 .… 4.18 s 129 .… 4.18 s 169 .… 26.12 s 171 .… 8.3 s 180 .… 18.13 s 180–184 .… 18.13 s 180 ff .… 18.14 s 181 .… 18.13 s 182 .… 18.13 s 183 .… 18.13 s 184 .… 18.13 s 191(2)(a)(iv) .… 11.37 s 199A .… 18.17 ss 261–282 .… 6.2 s 262 .… 6.20, 11.38 s 262(1)(a)–(j) .… 11.38

s 262(2) .… 11.38 s 262(2)(b) .… 1.11 s 262(4) .… 6.20 s 262(8) .… 3.53 s 262(9) .… 3.53 s 262ff .… 11.38 s 263 .… 5.115 s 264 .… 5.115 s 265 .… 11.40 s 266 .… 5.115, 11.43 s 266(1) .… 5.115, 11.43 s 266(2) .… 5.115 s 266(3) .… 11.41 s 266(4) .… 5.115, 11.43 s 267 .… 8.22 s 267(1) .… 8.22 s 267(2) .… 8.22 s 267(3) .… 8.22 s 267(5) .… 8.22 s 269 .… 11.40, 32.69 s 270(4) .… 11.38 s 271 .… 11.44 s 271(2)(e) .… 8.3 s 272 .… 11.38 s 272(2) .… 11.38 s 274 .… 11.44

s 283AA .… 8.4 s 283AB .… 8.4 s 283AC .… 8.6 s 283BH .… 8.1 s 283DB(1) .… 8.6 s 283DB(2) .… 8.6 s 416 .… 18.11 s 416–434G .… 18.3 s 417 .… 18.11 s 418 .… 18.6 s 418A .… 18.11 s 419 .… 18.14 s 419(2) .… 18.11 s 420 .… 18.7, 18.12 s 420(1) .… 18.11, 18.12 s 420(2) .… 18.11, 18.12 s 420(4) .… 18.12 s 420A .… 5.130, 18.12, 18.13, 20.6, 20.22, 20.31 s 420B .… 18.11, 18.13 s 420B(6)(b) .… 18.13 s 421 .… 18.11, 18.12 s 421(1)(d) .… 18.5 s 421(2) .… 18.5 s 421A .… 18.11, 18.12 s 422 .… 18.12 s 424 .… 18.12

s 425 .… 18.15 s 427 .… 18.7, 18.17, 18.25 s 428 .… 18.7 s 433 .… 18.16 s 433(2) .… 8.25 s 433(3) .… 8.25 s 433(9) .… 8.25 s 434D–434G .… 18.11 s 468 .… 20.51, 23.3 s 471B .… 23.3 s 471C .… 23.3 s 474(1) .… s 5823.2 s 477(2B) .… 11.35 s 477(2)(g) .… 11.35 s 483 .… 2.47 s 513C .… 5.112 s 553E .… 23.2 s 554E(1) .… 23.9 s 554E(4) .… 23.1, 23.9 s 554E(5) .… 23.9 s 554F .… 23.12 s 554F(2) .… 23.9 s 554F(3) .… 23.9, 23.13 s 554F(4) .… 23.13 s 554F(5) .… 23.12 s 555 .… 8.25, 10.15

s 556 .… 8.25 s 560 .… 8.25 s 561 .… 8.25 s 562 .… 8.25 s 563AAA .… 8.2 s 563B .… 23.10 s 565 .… 8.23 s 566 .… 18.15 s 566ff .… 8.24 s 568 .… 23.14, 37.13 s 568(1A) .… 23.14 s 568B .… 23.14 s 568D(2) .… 23.14 s 568E .… 23.14 s 568F .… 23.14 s 588 .… 32.24 s 588FA ff .… 8.23 s 588FF .… 13.4 s 588FJ .… 8.24 s 588FL .… 5.41 s 588FL(1) .… 5.115 s 588FL(2) .… 5.115 s 588FL(4) .… 5.115 s 588FL(4)(a) .… 5.115 s 588FL(4)(b) .… 5.115 s 588FM .… 5.115

s 588FN(1) .… 5.115 s 588FN(2) .… 5.115 s 588FN(3) .… 5.115 s 588FN(4)(a) .… 5.115 s 588FN(4)(b) .… 5.115 s 588L .… 11.43 s 588M .… 11.43 s 601AD .… 14.15 s 601AD(2) .… 32.24 s 601AF .… 14.15 s 601AH .… 14.15 s 601EA ff .… 42.11 s 761A .… 6.16 s 1070A(4) .… 1.44, 6.16 s 1071B .… 6.16 s 1072A .… 6.16 s 1072B .… 6.16 s 1072D .… 6.16 s 1072E .… 26.12 s 1072E(10) .… 26.12 s 1072E(10)(c) .… 26.12 s 1072F .… 6.16 s 1072G .… 6.16 s 1317B .… 11.40 s 1323 .… 18.19 ss 1503–1510 .… 6.2

s 1505 .… 11.44 Ch 2.K .… 5.36, 5.68 Div 2A .… 5.115 Pt 5.2 .… 5.120, 18.3, 18.11, 19.21, 19.34,19.35, 20.22, 20.51 Pt 5.3A .… 5.111 Pt 5.6 Div 6 .… 23.2 Pt 6D .… 8.2 Ch 2.K .… 6.2 Corporations Regulations 2001 reg 1.0.02A .… 5.105 reg 5.6.24 .… 23.6 reg 5.6.24(3) .… 23.6 Criminal Justice Act 1998 .… 37.14 Customs Act 1901 .… 37.14 Designs Act 2003 .… 6.27 s 10(2) .… 6.27 s 11 .… 6.27 s 21 .… 6.27 s 46 .… 6.27 s 47 .… 6.27 s 114 .… 6.27 Family Law Act 1975 .… 13.8 s 79 .… 13.8 s 85A .… 13.8 s 90AE .… 13.8 Financial Institutions Code .… 11.45

Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 .… 1.47 s 5(1) .… 1.47 s 12A(5) .… 1.47 s 26A(2) .… 1.47 Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 s 128B .… 41.4 s 128D .… 41.4 s 128F .… 41.4 s 215 .… 18.7 s 218 .… 41.1 Pt III Div 16E .… 41.3 Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 s 6-5 .… 41.4 s 6-5(1) .… 41.2 s 8-1 .… 41.3 s 25-25 .… 41.3 s 25-30 .… 41.3 s 25-30(3) .… 41.3 s 82KZL .… 41.3 s 82KZM .… 41.3 s 82KZMA .… 41.3 s 82KZMD .… 41.3 s 82KZO .… 41.3 s 102-20 .… 41.5 s 104-10(1) .… 41.5 s 104-10(2) .… 41.5

s 104-10(7) .… 41.5 s 106-60 .… 41.5 s 328-110 .… 41.3 Div 230 .… 41.3 Pt 3-1 .… 41.5 Pt 3-3 .… 41.5 Lands Acquisition Act 1989 s 53 .… 32.35 s 62 .… 32.35 s 64 .… 32.35, 38.3 s 66 .… 32.35 s 68 .… 38.3 s 69 .… 38.3 s 84 .… 32.35 s 92 .… 32.35 Life Insurance Act 1945 .… 6.15 s 4(1) .… 6.15 s 87(1) .… 6.15 s 87(1)(b) .… 6.15 s 87(2) .… 6.15 s 88 .… 6.15 s 89 .… 6.15 s 89(1) .… 6.15 s 90 .… 6.15 s 91 .… 6.15 Sch 5 .… 6.15

National Consumer Credit Code .… 38.6 s 6 .… 38.6 s 7 .… 38.6 s 13A .… 38.6 s 42–53 .… 38.6 s 88 .… 38.6 Pt III .… 38.6 National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 .… 38.6 A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 s 9-5 .… 41.6 s 9-10(2) .… 41.6 s 9-25(4) .… 41.6 s 9-70 .… 41.6 s 9-75 .… 41.6 s 11-5 .… 41.6 s 11-15(4) .… 41.6 s 11-20 .… 41.6 s 29-10(3) .… 41.6 s 29-70(2) .… 41.6 s 40-5(2) .… 41.6 s 58-20 .… 41.7 s 58-95 .… 41.7 s 105-5 .… 41.7 s 105-5(1) .… 41.7 s 105-5(1)(a) .… 41.7 s 105-5(2) .… 41.7

s 105-5(3)(a) .… 41.7 s 189-5 .… 41.6 s 189-10 .… 41.6 s 189-15 .… 41.6 s 195-1 .… 41.6, 41.7 Div 40 .… 41.6 Div 58 .… 41.7 Div 105 .… 41.7 A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Regulations 1999 .… 41.6 reg 40-5.02 .… 41.6 reg 40-5.09 .… 41.6 reg 40-5.09(3) .… 41.6 reg 40-5.09(4) .… 41.6 Sch 7 .… 41.6 Sch 7 Pt 3 .… 41.6 Sch 7 Pt 8 .… 41.6 Patents Act 1990 s 13(2) .… 6.26 s 14 .… 6.26 s 187 .… 6.26 s 188 .… 6.26 s 189 .… 6.26 s 189(1) .… 6.26 s 189(2) .… 6.26 s 189(3) .… 6.26 s 196(b)(ii) .… 6.26

Patents Regulations 1991 reg 19.1(a) .… 6.26 Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (PPSA) .… 1.2, 1.7, 1.19, 1.49, 2.6, 3.26, 3.27, Ch 5, 6.1, 6.2, 8.12, 9.11, 9.13, 9.15, 9.23, 13.1, 32.70 s 3 .… 5.1 s 5(1)(j) .… 1.19 s 6(1)(a) .… 5.7 s 6(1A)(a) .… 5.7 s 6(1A)(b) .… 5.7 s 6(1)(b) .… 5.7 s 6(2)(a) .… 5.7 s 6(2)(b) .… 5.7 s 6(2)(c)(i) .… 5.7 s 6(2)(c)(ii) .… 5.7 s 6(2)(d) .… 5.7 s 6(2)(e) .… 5.7 s 8 .… 3.26, 5.6, 5.11, 5.12, 6.1 s 8(1) .… 5.16 s 8(1)(a) .… 5.11 s 8(1)(c) .… 5.11, 5.15 s 8(1)(d) .… 5.11 s 8(1)(f)(i) .… 5.11 s 8(1)(f)(vi) .… 5.11 s 8(1)(f)(vii) .… 5.11 s 8(1)(h) .… 5.11, 5.20 s 8(1)(j) .… 5.9, 5.11

s 8(1)(ja) .… 5.11 s 8(1)(jb) .… 5.11 s 8(2) .… 5.11 s 8(6) .… 5.11 s 8(f)(vi)–(ix) .… 5.22 s 10 .… 5.2, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.22, 5.23,5.25, 5.29, 5.38, 5.39, 5.42, 5.51, 5.53,5.82, 5.94, 5.95, 5.103, 5.117 s 12 .… 5.6, 5.11, 6.1 s 12(1) .… 5.1, 5.8, 5.12, 5.13, 5.14, 5.15,5.16, 5.20, 5.21, 5.22, 5.23, 5.24, 5.26,5.30, 5.34, 5.79, 5.120 s 12(2) .… 5.2, 5.14, 5.16, 5.20 s 12(2)(d) .… 1.49 s 12(2)(l) .… 5.16 s 12(3) .… 5.1, 5.2, 5.8, 5.12, 5.13, 5.21, 5.30,5.34, 5.79, 5.98 s 12(3A) .… 5.9 s 12(3)(a) .… 5.22 s 12(3)(b) .… 5.23 s 12(4) .… 5.51 s 12(5) .… 5.11, 5.12 s 12(6) .… 5.11, 5.12 s 13 .… 5.25 s 13(1) .… 5.25 s 13(1)(a)–(d) .… 5.25 s 13(1)(e) .… 5.25, 5.114 s 13(2) .… 5.25 s 13(2)(a) .… 5.25 s 13(2)(b) .… 5.25

s 13(3) .… 5.25 s 13(c) .… 5.25 s 13(d) .… 5.25 s 14(1) .… 5.84 s 14(1)(a) .… 5.81 s 14(1)(b) .… 5.82, 5.86 s 14(1)(c) .… 5.81, 5.83 s 14(1)(d) .… 5.81, 5.83 s 14(2) .… 5.84 s 14(2A) .… 5.84 s 14(2)(a) .… 5.84 s 14(2)(b) .… 5.84 s 14(2)(c) .… 5.84, 5.85 s 14(3) .… 5.85 s 14(4) .… 5.85 s 14(5) .… 5.86 s 14(6) .… 5.82, 5.85 s 14(6)(a) .… 5.85 s 14(6)(b) .… 5.85 s 14(6)(c) .… 5.85 s 14(8) .… 5.81 s 15 .… 5.10 s 15(2) .… 5.10 s 18(1) .… 5.35 s 18(2) .… 5.32, 5.79, 5.116 s 18(3) .… 5.32, 5.72, 5.116

s 18(5) .… 5.133, 5.136 s 19 .… 5.27, 5.28, 5.87, 8.12 s 19(1) .… 5.28, 5.36 s 19(2) .… 5.28, 5.30, 5.31, 5.32 s 19(2)(a) .… 5.30 s 19(2)(b) .… 5.77 s 19(3) .… 5.32, 5.35 s 19(4) .… 5.35, 5.116 s 19(5) .… 5.4, 5.30 s 20 .… 5.8, 5.27, 5.36, 5.38, 5.41 s 20(1) .… 5.36 s 20(1)(b)(i) .… 5.40 s 20(1)(b)(ii) .… 5.40, 5.51 s 20(1)(b)(iii) .… 5.36, 5.37, 5.39 s 20(2) .… 5.37, 5.38, 5.39, 5.40 s 20(2)–(5) .… 5.36 s 20(2)(a) .… 5.39 s 20(2)(b) .… 5.38 s 20(2)(b)(ii) .… 5.38 s 20(2)(b)(iii) .… 5.38 s 20(3) .… 5.39 s 20(4) .… 5.38 s 20(5) .… 5.38 s 21 .… 5.8, 5.27, 5.41, 5.42 s 21(1)(a) .… 5.54 s 21(1)(b) .… 5.36, 5.41, 5.51

s 21(1)(b)(i) .… 5.77 s 21(2) .… 5.41 s 21(2)(a) .… 5.53 s 21(2)(b) .… 5.4, 5.42, 5.44, 5.45 s 21(2)(c)(i) .… 5.51 s 21(3) .… 5.41 s 21(4) .… 5.74 s 22 .… 5.27, 5.42, 5.43 s 22(1) .… 5.61 s 22(1)(a) .… 5.44, 5.57 s 22(1)(b) .… 5.43, 5.44, 5.57 s 22(1)(c) .… 5.44, 5.57 s 22(1)(d) .… 5.57, 5.62 s 22(2) .… 5.57, 5.62 s 22(3) .… 5.62 s 22(4) .… 5.62 s 22(4)(a) .… 5.62 s 22(4)(b) .… 5.62 s 23 .… 5.50 s 24 .… 5.42, 5.127 s 24(1) .… 5.40, 5.43, 5.44, 5.45 s 24(4) .… 5.47 s 24(4)–(6) .… 5.40 s 24(5) .… 5.42 s 24(5)(a)–(c) .… 5.48 s 24(5)(d)–(f) .… 5.48

s 24(6) .… 5.4, 5.42, 5.78 s 24(6)(a) .… 5.49 s 24(6)(b) .… 5.49 s 24(6)(c)(i) .… 5.49 s 24(6)(c)(ii) .… 5.49 s 24(6)(c)(iii) .… 5.49 s 25 .… 5.51 s 25(1) .… 5.51 s 25(4) .… 5.51 s 26 .… 5.52 s 26(2)(a) .… 5.52 s 26(2)(b) .… 5.52 s 27(2) .… 5.52 s 27(3) .… 5.52, 5.78 s 27(4) .… 5.52 s 27(5) .… 5.52 s 27(6) .… 5.52 s 28 .… 5.52 s 29 .… 5.52 s 29(1)(a) .… 5.52 s 29(1)(b) .… 5.52 s 29(2) .… 5.52 s 31(1)(a) .… 5.33 s 31(1)(b)–(e) .… 5.33 s 31(2) .… 5.33 s 31(3) .… 5.33

s 31(3)(a) .… 5.33 s 31(4) .… 5.33 s 31(5) .… 5.33 s 31(6) .… 5.33 s 32 .… 5.65, 5.104, 5.139, 8.12 s 32(1) .… 5.33, 5.90 s 32(1)(a) .… 5.33, 5.110 s 32(1)(b) .… 5.33, 5.56, 5.60, 5.110 s 32(5) .… 5.90 s 33(1) .… 5.60 s 33(1)(a) .… 5.56 s 33(1)(b) .… 5.56 s 33(1)(c) .… 5.56 s 33(2) .… 5.60 s 33(3) .… 5.60 s 34(1) .… 5.65 s 34(1)(a) .… 5.65 s 34(1)(b) .… 5.65 s 34(1)(c)(i) .… 5.65 s 34(1)(c)(ii) .… 5.65 s 34(2) .… 5.65 s 34(3) .… 5.65 s 35(1) .… 5.61 s 35(2) .… 5.61 s 35(3) .… 5.61 s 36(1) .… 5.63

s 36(2) .… 5.63 s 36(3) .… 5.63 s 37(1) .… 5.34, 5.58, 5.66 s 37(1)(a) .… 5.58 s 37(1)(b) .… 5.58 s 37(1)(c) .… 5.58 s 37(1)(d) .… 5.58 s 37(1)(e) .… 5.58 s 37(2) .… 5.34, 5.58, 5.66 s 38(1) .… 5.67 s 38(2) .… 5.67 s 38(3) .… 5.67 s 38(4) .… 5.67 s 39(1) .… 5.64 s 39(2) .… 5.64 s 39(2A) .… 5.64 s 39(2)(a) .… 5.64 s 39(2)(b) .… 5.64 s 39(3) .… 5.64 s 39(4) .… 5.64 s 40(1) .… 5.64 s 40(2) .… 5.64 s 40(3) .… 5.64 s 40(4) .… 5.64 s 40(5) .… 5.64 s 42 .… 5.102, 5.105

s 42(b) .… 5.34, 5.105 s 43(1) .… 5.41, 5.103 s 43(2) .… 5.103 s 44(1) .… 5.108 s 44(2)(a) .… 5.108 s 44(2)(b) .… 5.108 s 44(3) .… 5.108 s 45 .… 5.108 s 45(1) .… 5.108 s 45(1)(a) .… 5.108 s 45(2) .… 5.108 s 45(3) .… 5.108 s 45(3)(a) .… 5.108 s 45(4) .… 5.108 s 46 .… 5.35, 5.104, 5.105 s 46(1) .… 5.34, 5.66, 5.104, 5.116 s 47(1) .… 5.107 s 47(2)(a) .… 5.107 s 47(2)(b) .… 5.107 s 47(2)(c) .… 5.107 s 48 .… 5.105 s 48–51 .… 5.106 s 49 .… 5.105 s 50 .… 5.105 s 50(1) .… 5.105 s 50(2) .… 5.105

s 50(3) .… 5.105 s 51 .… 5.105 s 51(1) .… 5.105 s 51(1)(a) .… 5.105 s 51(2) .… 5.105 s 52(1) .… 5.106 s 52(2) .… 5.106 s 52(2)(a) .… 5.106 s 52(2)(b) .… 5.106 s 53 .… 5.110 s 53(2) .… 5.110 s 53(3) .… 5.110 s 55 .… 5.8, 5.55, 5.69, 5.96 s 55(1) .… 5.70 s 55(2) .… 5.28, 5.71, 5.72 s 55(3) .… 5.41, 5.71, 5.89 s 55(4) .… 5.41, 5.73, 5.74, 5.75, 5.76, 5.78, 5.79, 5.82, 5.87, 5.100 s 55(4)–(6) .… 5.74 s 55(5) .… 5.41, 5.73, 5.74, 5.75, 5.78, 5.100 s 55(5)(a) .… 5.74, 5.79, 5.82, 5.87 s 55(5)(b) .… 5.75, 5.77, 5.78 s 55(5)(c) .… 5.75 s 55(6) .… 5.73, 5.74, 5.75, 5.78 s 56 .… 5.41, 5.78, 5.89 s 56(2) .… 5.41 s 57 .… 5.69, 5.78

s 57(1) .… 5.89 s 57(2) .… 5.89 s 57(2A) .… 5.51 s 57(3) .… 5.89 s 58 .… 5.90 s 60 .… 5.90 s 61 .… 5.90, 5.91 s 61(2)(b) .… 5.91 s 62 .… 5.69, 5.79, 5.87, 5.88, 5.134 s 62(2)(b)(i) .… 5.87 s 62(2)(b)(ii) .… 5.87 s 62(2)(c) .… 5.80, 5.87 s 62(3)(b)(i) .… 5.87 s 62(3)(b)(ii) .… 5.87 s 62(3)(c) .… 5.80, 5.87 s 63 .… 5.69, 5.79, 5.87, 5.88, 5.134 s 63(a) .… 5.88 s 63(b) .… 5.88 s 63(c) .… 5.88 s 63(d) .… 5.88 s 64 .… 5.87 s 66–68 .… 5.90 s 69–72 .… 5.90 s 70 .… 5.47 s 71 .… 5.48 s 73–77 .… 5.90

s 75 .… 5.51 s 76 .… 5.58, 5.66 s 80 .… 5.118 s 80(8) .… 5.118 s 87 .… 5.93 s 88 .… 5.93, 5.94, 5.95, 5.98 s 89 .… 5.93, 5.95, 5.96, 5.98 s 90(a) .… 5.95, 5.96 s 90(b) .… 5.95 s 90(c) .… 5.95 s 90(d) .… 5.95 s 91 .… 5.95 s 91(a) .… 5.95 s 92 .… 5.97 s 93(1) .… 5.97 s 93(2) .… 5.97 s 94 .… 5.97 s 95 .… 5.97, 5.104 s 95(1) .… 5.97 s 95(1)–(4) .… 5.97 s 95(5) .… 5.97 s 95(6) .… 5.97 s 95(7) .… 5.97 s 96 .… 5.97, 5.98 s 97(a) .… 5.97 s 98 .… 5.93

s 99 .… 5.55, 5.101 s 99(1) .… 5.98, 5.99, 5.100, 5.101 s 99(2) .… 5.98, 5.99 s 100 .… 5.55, 5.100, 5.101 s 101 .… 5.100, 5.101 s 102 .… 5.101 s 102(1) .… 5.101 s 102(1)–(3) .… 5.101 s 102(2) .… 5.101 s 102(3) .… 5.101 s 102(4) .… 5.101 s 103 .… 5.101 s 103(b) .… 5.101 s 108 .… 5.119 s 109(1) .… 5.120 s 109(2) .… 5.120 s 109(3) .… 5.120 s 109(4) .… 5.120 s 109(5) .… 5.131, 5.138 s 110 .… 5.119, 5.120 s 111 .… 5.119, 5.120, 5.121 s 111(1) .… 5.121 s 111(2) .… 5.121 s 112(1) .… 5.122 s 112(2)(a) .… 5.122 s 112(2)(b) .… 5.122

s 113 .… 5.120 s 114 .… 5.119 s 115 .… 5.119, 5.133 s 115(1) .… 5.135 s 116 .… 5.120 s 117 .… 5.138 s 117(1)(b)(ii) .… 5.138 s 117(3) .… 5.138 s 118(1)(b) .… 5.138 s 118(3) .… 5.138 s 118(4) .… 5.138 s 120 .… 5.139 s 120(1) .… 5.139 s 120(2)(a) .… 5.139 s 120(2)(b) .… 5.139 s 120(3) .… 5.139 s 120(4) .… 5.139 s 120(5) .… 5.139 s 121(1) .… 5.139 s 121(2)(a)–(d) .… 5.139 s 121(2)(e) .… 5.139 s 121(3) .… 5.139 s 121(4) .… 5.139 s 121(5) .… 5.139 s 123 .… 5.124, 5.125, 5.128 s 123(1) .… 5.97, 5.124, 5.127

s 123(2) .… 5.124 s 123(3) .… 5.124 s 123(4) .… 5.45 s 124 .… 5.124 s 125(1) .… 5.128 s 125(2) .… 5.128 s 125(3) .… 5.128 s 126(1) .… 5.127 s 126(2) .… 5.129 s 126(3) .… 5.45, 5.127 s 127(2) .… 5.124, 5.126 s 127(3) .… 5.124 s 127(4) .… 5.124 s 127(5) .… 5.124 s 127(5)–(11) .… 5.124 s 128 .… 5.128, 5.130, 5.131, 5.132, 5.134,5.136 s 128(1) .… 5.131 s 128(2) .… 5.129 s 128(3) .… 5.129 s 128(6) .… 5.129 s 129 .… 5.120, 5.129, 5.132 s 129(1) .… 5.131 s 129(2)(a) .… 5.131 s 129(2)(b) .… 5.131 s 129(3)(a) .… 5.131 s 129(3)(b) .… 5.131

s 130 .… 5.124, 5.126, 5.131 s 130(3) .… 5.131 s 131 .… 5.119, 5.121, 5.130 s 133 .… 5.119, 5.133 s 133(1) .… 5.132 s 133(2) .… 5.132 s 134 .… 5.120, 5.134 s 135 .… 5.134 s 135(1)(a) .… 5.134 s 135(1)(b) .… 5.134 s 135(1)(c) .… 5.134 s 135(2) .… 5.134 s 135(3) .… 5.134 s 135(4) .… 5.134 s 136 .… 5.136 s 136(5) .… 5.136 s 137 .… 5.134 s 137(1) .… 5.131 s 137(2) .… 5.131 s 137(3) .… 5.131 s 138 .… 5.131 s 140 .… 5.119, 5.120, 5.133, 5.139 s 140(2) .… 5.133 s 140(3) .… 5.133 s 140(4) .… 5.133 s 140(7) .… 5.121, 5.133

s 142 .… 5.136, 5.137 s 142(1) .… 5.136 s 142(1)(a) .… 5.136 s 142(1)(b) .… 5.136 s 142(2) .… 5.136 s 142(3) .… 5.136 s 143(1) .… 5.137 s 143(2) .… 5.137 s 144 .… 5.129, 5.134 s 144(d) .… 5.129 s 150 .… 5.53 s 151(1) .… 5.74 s 153 .… 5.53, 5.56, 5.87, 5.88 s 161 .… 5.53 s 163(1) .… 5.53 s 163(1)(a) .… 5.53 s 163(1)(b) .… 5.53 s 163(1)(c) .… 5.53 s 164(1) .… 5.53 s 164(2) .… 5.53 s 164(3) .… 5.53 s 165 .… 5.53 s 166(1) .… 5.53 s 166(2) .… 5.53 s 166(3) .… 5.53 s 167 .… 5.53

s 167(1) .… 5.53 s 167(1)(c) .… 5.53 s 167(2) .… 5.53 s 167(3) .… 5.53 s 177(5) .… 5.138 s 235 .… 5.64 s 254 .… 5.2, 5.12, 5.42, 5.43, 5.72 s 254(1)(c) .… 5.93 s 267(1) .… 5.41, 5.111 s 267(1)(a)(i) .… 5.112 s 267(1)(a)(ii) .… 5.112 s 267(1)(a)(iii) .… 5.112 s 267(1)(a)(v) .… 5.112 s 267(1)(b)(i) .… 5.112 s 267(1)(b)(ii) .… 5.112 s 267(1)(b)(iii) .… 5.112 s 267(2) .… 5.112, 5.114 s 267A .… 5.113, 5.114 s 268(1)(aa) .… 5.114 s 268(1)(a)(i) .… 5.114 s 268(1)(a)(ii) .… 5.114 s 268(1)(a)(iii) .… 5.114 s 268(1)(b) .… 5.114 s 268(2) .… 5.114 s 275 .… 5.38 s 275(9) .… 5.38

s 296(f) .… 5.131 s 297 .… 5.53, 5.109 s 298 .… 5.109 s 299 .… 5.109 s 300 .… 5.48 s 306 .… 5.8 s 307 .… 5.8 s 308 .… 5.8 s 310 .… 5.8 s 311 .… 5.8 s 314 .… 5.8 s 321 .… 5.8 s 322 .… 5.8, 5.106 s 322(1) .… 5.8 s 322(2) .… 5.8 s 322(2)(a) .… 5.8 s 332 .… 5.8 s 333 .… 5.8 s 337 .… 5.8 s 340 .… 5.117 s 340(1)(a) .… 5.117 s 340(1)(b) .… 5.117 s 340(2) .… 5.117, 5.118 s 340(3) .… 5.117 s 340(4) .… 5.117 s 340(5) .… 5.117, 5.118

s 341(1A)(a) .… 5.118 s 341(1B) .… 5.117 s 341(1)(b) .… 5.118 s 341(2) .… 5.118 s 341(3) .… 5.118 s 341(4) .… 5.118 s 341A(1)(a) .… 5.118 s 341A(1)(b) .… 5.118 s 341A(2) .… 5.118 Ch 4 .… 5.21, 5.23, 5.26, 5.95, 5.97, 5.119, 5.120, 5.121, 5.122, 5.123, 5.124, 5.137, 5.138 Div 2 .… 5.69 Div 3 .… 5.69 Div 4 .… 5.69, 5.90 Div 5 .… 5.69, 5.90, 5.134 Div 6 .… 5.8, 5.69, 5.90 Div 7 .… 5.8 Pt 2.3 .… 5.118 Pt 2.6 .… 5.69, 5.90 Pt 3.3 .… 5.93 Pt 3.4 .… 5.93 Pt 5.3 .… 5.53 Pt 5.4 .… 5.8,5.53 Pt 7.2 .… 5.7 Personal Property Securities (Corporations and Other Amendments) Act 2010 .… 5.115 Personal Property Securities (Corporations and Other Amendments) Act

2011 .… 5.51 s 13 .… 5.52 s 14 .… 5.52 Sch 2 .… 5.52 Personal Property Securities (Corporations and Other Amendments) Bill 2009 .… 5.15, 5.16,5.51, 5.72 Personal Property Securities (Corporations and Other Amendments) Bill 2010 .… 5.5 Personal Property Securities Regulations 2010 .… 5.25, 5.74, 5.94, 5.95, 5.107, 5.108, 5.134 r 1.6 .… 5.94 r 1.7 .… 5.108 r 2.1 .… 5.108 r 2.2 .… 5.106, 5.108 Sch 1 Pt 2.2 .… 5.94 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Pt 2.2 .… 37.14 Pt 2.3 .… 37.14 Securities Industry Act 1980 .… 14.2 Shipping Registration Act 1981 .… 9.13, 9.14, 9.15, 9.16, 9.17, 9.23, 9.24, 20.47 s 3(1) .… 9.14 s 4 .… 9.14 s 7 .… 9.14 s 8(1) .… 9.14 s 11(1)(a) .… 9.14 s 11(1)(d) .… 9.14

s 11(1)(e) .… 9.14 s 12 .… 9.14 s 12(1) .… 9.14 s 12(3) .… 9.14 s 12(4) .… 9.14 s 13 .… 9.14, 9.17 s 14 .… 9.14 s 14(a) .… 9.14 s 14(b) .… 9.14 s 14(c) .… 9.14 s 33 .… 9.23 s 34 .… 9.17 s 35 .… 9.23 s 36 .… 9.24 s 38 .… 9.15, 9.28 s 38–40 .… 9.24 s 38(1) .… 9.15 s 38(2) .… 9.15, 9.17 s 38(3) .… 9.15 s 38(4) .… 9.15 s 39 .… 9.15, 9.16, 9.23, 9.24 s 40 .… 9.15, 9.16, 9.26 s 41 .… 9.16, 9.23, 9.24, 9.26 s 41(1) .… 9.15 s 41(2) .… 9.15 s 41(4) .… 9.15

s 42(1) .… 9.16 s 42(2A) .… 9.16 s 43(2) .… 9.16 s 44(1) .… 9.28 s 44(2) .… 9.15, 9.28 s 44(3) .… 9.28 s 44(4) .… 9.28 s 45 .… 9.15, 9.16, 9.23, 9.24 s 46 .… 9.23, 9.24 s 47 .… 9.15, 9.23, 9.24 s 47A .… 9.15, 9.17 s 47A(1) .… 9.18 s 47A(2) .… 9.18 s 47A(3) .… 9.18 s 47A(6) .… 9.18 s 47B(1) .… 9.18 s 47B(2) .… 9.18 s 47C .… 9.18 s 47D(1) .… 9.18 s 47E .… 9.18 s 51 .… 9.23 s 56 .… 9.23 s 57 .… 9.23 s 59 .… 9.23 s 59(1) .… 9.23 s 60 .… 9.23

s 63 .… 9.14 s 68 .… 9.14 s 69 .… 9.14 s 71 .… 9.14 s 86(1) .… 9.14 s 89 .… 9.14 Pt II .… 9.14 Shipping Registration Regulations 1981 reg 26 .… 9.16 reg 27 .… 9.16 reg 28 .… 9.28 Taxation Administration Act 1953 s 12-245 .… 41.4 s 16-25 .… 41.4 s 16-30 .… 41.4 s 260-5 .… 41.1 s 260.75 .… 18.7 Sch 1 .… 41.4 Tax Laws Amendments (2012 Measures No 4) Act 2012 .… 41.6 Trade Marks Act 1995 s 21 .… 6.27 s 22 .… 6.27 s 106 .… 6.27 s 107 .… 6.27 s 108 .… 6.27 Trade Practices Act 1974 .… 13.17, 20.38, 38.5

s 47 .… 32.9 s 51AA .… 38.5 s 51AB .… 13.35, 38.5 s 51AC .… 38.5 s 52 .… 13.40, 38.5 s 52A .… 38.5 s 74(1) .… 19.31 s 87 .… 38.5 Trade Practices Revision Act 1986 .… 38.5 New South Wales Bills of Sale Act 1898 .… 1.19 Civil Procedure Act 2005 s 101 .… 39.42, 39.49 s 106(1)(c) .… 26.23 s 126 .… 7.5, 24.50 s 126–128 .… 26.23 Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989 .… 37.14 s 19 .… 37.14 Contractors Debts Act 1997 .… 7.10 Contracts Review Act 1980 .… 3.8, 13.17, 13.36,17.7, 20.22, 32.14, 38.6 s 4 .… 38.6 s 6 .… 38.6 s 7 .… 38.6 s 8 .… 13.36 s 9 .… 13.36 s 19 .… 38.6

Conveyancing Act 1919 .… 1.2, 1.3, 3.11, 4.2,4.41, 7.1, 7.6, 9.4, 21.9, 27.1, 27.4 s 3(1) .… 4.4 s 5 .… 4.41 s 6 .… 4.41 s 7 .… 3.3, 4.41, 21.9 s 7(1) .… 3.32, 13.6, 18.3, 19.15, 20.6, 20.9, 20.13, 24.13, 31.2, 32.56 s 8 .… 4.41 s 10 .… 36.2 s 11 .… 12.2, 12.4, 33.14 s 12 .… 1.37, 6.4, 14.2, 14.4, 14.5, 14.11, 15.2, 17.3, 32.68 s 23B .… 3.4, 14.4, 15.2 s 23C .… 1.35, 1.37, 3.37, 14.4, 32.18 s 23C(1)(c) .… 1.40 s 37 .… 38.2 s 37A .… 13.5 s 37A(1) .… 13.5 s 37A(3) .… 13.6 s 37B .… 13.9 s 37C .… 13.14 s 46 .… 14.5 s 52A .… 15.4 s 53 .… 24.15 s 54A .… 1.35, 1.40, 3.37, 3.45 s 60 .… 4.10 s 66 .… 32.39, 32.77

s 66(2) .… 32.77 s 66(5) .… 32.77 s 66B .… 32.78 s 66G .… 11.5 s 76 .… 32.79 s 78 .… 1.31 s 78(1)(c) .… 3.11 s 78(1)(d) .… 3.11 s 79 .… 32.5 s 80 .… 3.19 s 80–83 .… 17.1 s 81 .… 3.12 s 82 .… 3.19 s 83 .… 3.12 s 88D .… 21.9 s 88F .… 4.4, 21.9 s 91 .… 3.34, 14.10, 15.5, 21.9, 22.17, 32.58, 34.3 s 91(1) .… 32.58 s 91(2) .… 32.58 s 91(3) .… 32.65 s 91(3)(a) .… 32.58, 32.60, 36.9 s 91(3)(b) .… 32.60 s 91(4) .… 14.3, 14.10 s 91(5) .… 32.60 s 91(6) .… 4.30 s 92 .… 1.60, 20.11, 32.37

s 93 .… 3.13, 3.15, 3.16, 4.9, 32.6, 32.7 s 93(1) .… 32.7 s 93(3) .… 32.7 s 93(4) .… 32.7 s 94 .… 32.56 s 94(1) .… 32.56 s 94(2) .… 32.56 s 94(3) .… 32.56 s 94(4) .… 32.56 s 95 .… 32.56 s 96 .… 3.32, 10.5, 22.42, 33.11 s 96A .… 14.8, 24.34 s 97 .… 31.2, 31.11 s 97(3) .… 31.11 s 98 .… 4.9, 32.39, 38.7 s 99 .… 11.2, 32.50, 33.18 s 99(1) .… 11.32 s 100 .… 21.5, 22.29 s 101 .… 21.1, 21.9, 22.52 s 101(1) .… 21.9 s 102(1) .… 20.40 s 102(1)(c) .… 18.3 s 103 .… 20.50, 21.9, 21.12, 32.3 s 103(1) .… 33.8 s 103(2) .… 21.21 s 103(7) .… 21.9

s 104 .… 4.41, 20.5 s 106 .… 1.35, 3.12, 4.41, 12.22 s 106(3) .… 12.22, 12.23 s 106(5) .… 12.22, 12.23 s 106(6) .… 12.22, 12.24 s 106(7) .… 12.22 s 106(11) .… 12.21 s 106(17) .… 12.25 s 107 .… 12.30 s 107(12) .… 12.31 s 109 .… 1.19, 6.16, 20.6 s 109(1) .… 20.6 s 109(1)(a) .… 20.5, 20.6 s 109(1)(b) .… 3.20, 19.39 s 109(1)(d) .… 20.6, 41.21 s 109(1)(e) .… 1.19, 20.6 s 109(2) .… 18.3, 20.6, 20.11, 41.21 s 109(3) .… 18.3, 20.6, 20.11, 41.21 s 109(5) .… 18.3, 20.5 s 109A .… 1.19, 20.6 s 110 .… 20.7 s 111 .… 4.2 s 111(1) .… 20.11 s 111(2) .… 4.37, 20.11 s 111(2)(b) .… 20.13, 20.14, 20.16 s 111(3) .… 20.11, 20.14

s 111(3)(a) .… 20.14 s 111(3)(d) .… 20.11, 20.14 s 111(4) .… 20.15 s 112 .… 15.3, 20.39 s 112(1) .… 20.49 s 112(2) .… 20.49 s 112(3) .… 20.19 s 112(4) .… 1.53, 10.12, 20.43, 20.47, 42.9 s 112(5) .… 20.9 s 112(6) .… 20.8 s 112(8) .… 20.8 s 113 .… 15.3 s 113(1) .… 20.41 s 113(2) .… 20.43 s 114 .… 3.20 s 115 .… 3.46 s 115(2) .… 18.5, 18.14 s 115(3) .… 18.9, 20.51 s 115(4) .… 18.9 s 115(5) .… 18.7, 18.17 s 115(6) .… 18.15 s 115(6A) .… 18.6 s 115(7) .… 18.9 s 115(8) .… 18.16 s 115A(1) .… 18.3 s 115A(2) .… 18.3, 18.6

s 115A(2)(c) .… 18.7 s 115A(3) .… 18.3 s 117 .… 12.3, 12.13, 19.30 s 117(4) .… 12.3 s 117(4)(b) .… 12.3 s 118 .… 12.13 s 125 .… 12.13 s 129 .… 3.3, 37.9 s 129(1) .… 19.10 s 130 .… 3.27, 37.11 s 134 .… 3.27, 32.91 s 142–144 .… 39.42 s 145 .… 29.2 s 153 .… 11.16 s 153(3) .… 11.16 s 161 .… 3.47 s 164 .… 24.13, 24.22, 25.14 s 164(1) .… 20.20, 27.16 s 164(1A) .… 24.13, 27.16 s 170 .… 4.41, 20.11, 20.16, 22.52 s 170(1) .… 20.16 s 170(1A) .… 20.16 s 170(1)(d) .… 22.52 s 170(2) .… 20.16 s 171 .… 32.77 s 173 .… 24.12

s 183 .… 24.15 s 184 .… 3.33 s 184A–184J .… 3.52, 27.1 s 184A ff .… 32.58 s 184B .… 27.4 s 184C .… 27.3 s 184G .… 27.4 s 184G(1) .… 27.3, 27.5, 27.10, 27.11 s 184G(2) .… 27.5, 27.14 s 185–194 .… 7.6 s 186–188 .… 24.50 s 186–189 .… 24.51 s 186(2) .… 24.51 s 188 .… 24.51 s 189(1) .… 24.51 s 213 .… 42.10 Pt 23 .… 27.5 Pt XXIII .… 3.52, 27.1 Sch 2 .… 3.4 Sch 4 .… 3.12 Sch 5 .… 3.34, 32.58 Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1898 .… 32.28 Credit Act 1984 s 105 .… 3.15 Credit (Home Finance Contracts) Act 1984 .… 9.1 Crown Lands (Continued Tenures) Act 1987

Sch 7 cl 117 .… 9.6 Crown Lands Act 1989 .… 9.6, 9.7 s 40 .… 9.6 Crown Lands Consolidation Act 1913 .… 9.6 Drug Trafficking (Civil Proceedings) Act 1990 .… 37.14 Duties Act 1997 .… 41.8 s 203A .… 41.10 s 205 .… 41.8 s 206 .… 41.8 s 208 .… 41.8 s 209 .… 41.8 s 210 .… 41.8 s 211 .… 41.9 s 213 .… 41.8 s 214 .… 41.10 s 216 .… 41.10 s 217 .… 41.10 s 223 .… 41.11 s 295 .… 41.8 s 304 .… 41.9 Evidence Act 1995 s 155 .… 27.16 s 156 .… 27.16 Fair Trading Act 1987 Pt 3 .… 38.5 Farm Debt Mediation Act 1994 .… 9.12, 14.2,19.6

Financial Institutions Act 1992 .… 11.45 Fisheries Management Act 1994 s 286A .… 5.9 General Register of Deeds (Conveyancing) Act 1919 s 111(2)(b1) .… 20.13 Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 s 18–20 .… 19.19 Industrial Relations Act 1996 .… 13.35 s 106 .… 13.35 Judgment Creditors’ Remedies Act 1901 .… 24.50 Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 .… 38.3 s 20(1) .… 38.2 s 65 .… 32.35 Landlord and Tenant Act 1899 s 10 .… 37.9 Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1948 s 8(1) .… 12.13 Land Tax Management Act 1956 s 47(1) .… 7.1, 41.12 Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965 s 3 .… 42.14 Legal Aid Commission Act 1979 s 47 .… 40.23 Legal Profession Act 1987 s 199 .… 40.21 s 209 .… 42.10

s 477–493 .… 42.11 s 479 .… 42.11 Pt 3.5 .… 42.11 Legal Profession Act 2004 s 728 .… 2.38 Limitation Act 1969 .… 14.1, 16.17, 16.20, 16.25, 16.26, 32.91 s 11(1) .… 17.1 s 14(1)(a) .… 17.1 s 15 .… 16.20 s 27 .… 16.20 s 40 .… 16.20 s 41 .… 16.20, 32.84, 32.89 s 42 .… 16.20 s 42(1) .… 16.20 s 42(2) .… 16.20, 17.1 s 43(1) .… 16.20 s 43(2) .… 16.20 s 44 .… 16.20 s 45 .… 16.20 s 46 .… 16.20 s 47–50 .… 20.47 s 51 .… 16.20 s 52 .… 32.87 s 52–56 .… 16.20 s 53 .… 32.87 s 54 .… 32.88

s 54(2)(a)(i) .… 16.20 s 55 .… 16.36, 32.84, 32.87 s 56 .… 16.36, 32.87 s 63–68A .… 16.20 s 65 .… 4.40, 32.85 Pt 2 .… 16.20 Pt 2 Div 3 .… 16.20 Pt 2 Div 4 .… 16.20 Pt 3 .… 16.20 Pt 4 Div 1 .… 16.20 Local Government Act 1993 s 68B .… 5.9 s 729 .… 11.45 Minors, Property and Contracts Act 1970 .… 11.19 New South Wales Act 1862 .… 21.6 Partnership Act 1892 s 2 .… 6.22 s 2(III) .… 6.22 s 31 .… 6.18, 6.22 s 33 .… 6.18 Powers of Attorney Act 2003 s 47 .… 3.47 Probate and Administration Act 1898 s 44 .… 32.27 s 45 .… 32.27 s 46C .… 16.9

s 46E .… 32.27 s 61B(7) .… 32.24 Protected Estates Act 1973 .… 11.21 Public Health Act 1902 s 58 .… 38.1 Real Property Act 1900 .… 1.2, 4.10, 4.12, 4.17, 4.36, 4.37, 4.41, 6.7, 9.4, 16.20, 17.1, 19.3, 19.6, 20.5, 21.5, 21.9, 27.4, 28.12, 31.11, 38.6 s 3(1) .… 1.9 s 32(6) .… 32.63 s 36(4) .… 28.5 s 36(5) .… 28.5 s 36(6) .… 28.5, 28.8 s 36(6A) .… 28.5 s 36(9) .… 28.5 s 36(11) .… 16.17, 28.3 s 41 .… 22.52, 28.3 s 41(1) .… 4.24 s 42 .… 4.14, 4.22, 9.24, 12.21, 12.25, 19.18 s 42(1)(d) .… 12.13, 12.18 s 42(a) .… 4.14 s 42(b) .… 4.14 s 43 .… 9.24, 19.18, 28.8, 28.9 s 43(1) .… 28.7 s 43A .… 28.4, 28.8, 28.9 s 43(a) .… 4.23 s 43A(3) .… 27.4

s 45 .… 19.18 s 45D .… 4.40, 32.84 s 46 .… 4.33 s 51 .… 4.33, 14.5, 17.5 s 52 .… 4.33, 14.5, 17.5 s 52A .… 4.6 s 53(4) .… 12.18, 19.3 s 56 .… 4.5 s 56A .… 4.32, 28.1, 28.6 s 56B .… 28.1 s 57 .… 4.2, 16.20, 20.11, 20.14 s 57(1) .… 4.1, 19.11 s 57(2) .… 4.37, 20.8, 20.11 s 57(2)(a) .… 20.15 s 57(2)(b) .… 19.2, 20.14, 20.16, 40.3 s 57(2)(b1) .… 20.13 s 57(3) .… 20.14 s 57(3)(d) .… 20.14 s 57(4) .… 20.15 s 57(5) .… 20.15 s 58 .… 4.25, 4.37, 16.20, 19.31, 20.11 s 58(1) .… 4.37 s 58(2) .… 4.37, 20.20 s 58(3) .… 10.12, 20.6, 20.44, 20.47 s 58A .… 4.37 s 59 .… 20.49

s 60 .… 4.36, 12.3, 16.20, 19.2, 19.6, 19.7, 19.10, 19.31, 28.4 s 60(a) .… 19.5, 19.6 s 60(c) .… 19.5 s 61 .… 16.20, 21.9, 22.52 s 61(2) .… 22.52 s 62 .… 21.9, 22.52 s 62(1) .… 21.9, 22.53 s 62(2) .… 22.53 s 62(3) .… 33.12 s 63 .… 16.20 s 63(1) .… 19.5, 19.6, 19.7 s 64 .… 4.10 s 65 .… 4.38 s 65(1) .… 4.38 s 74F .… 4.27, 4.28, 28.9 s 74J .… 4.27, 20.49 s 74K .… 4.27 s 74MA .… 4.27, 20.49 s 75 .… 4.29 s 76 .… 32.5 s 80(1) .… 32.5 s 80A .… 3.12, 4.29, 4.41 s 90 .… 14.14 s 96(2) .… 4.31 s 105 .… 24.51 s 111 .… 32.81

s 118 .… 19.18 Pt 7 Div 3 .… 19.11 Registration of Deeds Act 1897 .… 27.1, 27.5 Residential Tenancies Act 1987 Pt 5 .… 12.11 Rural Land Protection Act 1989 s 175 .… 3.28 s 176 .… 11.13 Sch 4 .… 7.1 Sale of Goods Act 1923 s 5(2) .… 5.121 s 23(5) .… 5.82 Stamp Duties Act 1920 .… 41.8 s 83 .… 41.8 State Revenue Legislation Amendment Act 2002 .… 41.8 Supreme Court Act 1970 s 67 .… 18.18 s 73 .… 3.3 s 74 .… 2.38 Supreme Court Rules Pt 29(2) .… 18.20 Taxation Administration Act 1996 .… 41.9 Trustee Act 1925 .… 11.13 s 9 .… 14.9 s 34 .… 11.13 s 39 .… 11.13

s 45 .… 13.51 s 53 .… 32.49 s 70 .… 32.79 s 71 .… 22.48, 32.79 s 76 .… 21.17 s 82(4) .… 11.13 s 82A .… 11.13 s 84 .… 11.13 s 85 .… 8.6 s 95 .… 19.26, 20.45 Uncollected Goods Act 1995 .… 19.27 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 r 26.3 .… 18.20 r 39.44 .… 26.23 r 39.45 .… 26.23 r 41.16 .… 7.13 reg 36.4 .… 39.49 s 41.16 .… 26.23 Pt 6 .… 18.19 Pt 18 .… 18.19 Pt 26 .… 18.19 Pt 42 .… 40.1, 40.7 Pt 46 reg 46.8 .… 40.27 Usury, Bills of Lading and Written Memoranda Act 1902 s 8A .… 42.14 Water Act 1912 .… 9.11

Water Management Act 2000 .… 9.11 Victoria Administration and Probate Act 1958 s 13 .… 32.27 s 14 .… 32.27 s 39 .… 16.9 s 40 .… 29.2 s 46 .… 11.16 Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 s 3 .… 19.27 s 54 .… 19.27 s 55(1) .… 19.27 s 55(2) .… 19.27 s 56 .… 19.27 s 56(2)(a) .… 19.27 s 56(4) .… 19.27 s 58(2) .… 19.27 s 60–62 .… 19.27 Pt 4.2 .… 19.27 Environmental Protection Act 1970 s 31A .… 37.5 s 31B .… 37.5 Evidence Act 2008 s 155 .… 27.16 s 156 .… 27.16 Fair Trading Act 1999

Pt 2 .… 38.5 Farm Debt Management Act 2011 .… 9.12 Farm Debt Mediation Act 2011 .… 19.7 Geelong Market Site Act 1990 .… 13.50 Goods Act 1958 s 3(2) .… 5.121 Guardianship and Administration Act 1986 .… 11.21 Instruments Act 1958 .… 1.19, 6.21 s 83 .… 6.20 s 84 .… 6.21 s 85 .… 6.21 s 87–92 .… 6.21 s 95 .… 6.21 s 126 .… 1.35 s 127 .… 1.40, 3.37, 3.45 Pt IX .… 6.21 Sch 9 .… 6.21 Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 s 68ff .… 32.35 Land Act 1958 .… 9.6 Landlord and Tenant Act 1958 s 42A–42F .… 19.27 s 43(1) .… 12.13 Pt IVA .… 19.27 Limitation of Actions Act 1958 .… 14.1, 16.21, 16.25, 32.91 s 3(1) .… 32.86

s 3(2) .… 16.21 s 3(3) .… 16.21 s 3(6) .… 32.86 s 3(7) .… 16.21 s 5(1) .… 16.17, 17.1 s 5(3) .… 17.1 s 5(7) .… 16.21 s 8 .… 16.21 s 9 .… 16.21 s 10 .… 16.21 s 15 .… 4.40, 16.21, 32.84 s 18 .… 4.40, 16.21, 32.85 s 20 .… 16.21 s 20(4) .… 16.21 s 21 .… 20.47 s 23 .… 32.87 s 23(1) .… 16.21 s 23(2) .… 16.21 s 24–26 .… 16.21, 32.88 s 24(2) .… 32.84 s 25(2) .… 32.88 s 26(3) .… 32.88 s 26(4) .… 32.88 s 27 .… 16.21, 32.87 Local Government Act 1989 s 156(1) .… 19.39

Partnership Act 1958 s 6 .… 6.22 s 6(3) .… 6.22 s 7 .… 6.22 s 35 .… 6.18 s 37 .… 6.18 Property Law Act 1928 .… 12.3, 25.14 s 94(3) .… 25.10 Property Law Act 1958 .… 1.2, 4.2, 12.23, 21.9,22.12, 27.11, 32.77 s 2(3) .… 25.11, 25.13, 25.14 s 3 .… 24.12 s 4 .… 27.1 s 4–17 .… 27.1 s 5 .… 3.52, 27.1 s 6 .… 3.52, 27.3, 27.5 s 7–14 .… 27.1 s 13 .… 3.52 s 15–17 .… 3.52 s 15ff .… 27.1 s 18 .… 3.32, 24.12 s 18(1) .… 12.23, 12.24, 18.3, 19.15, 20.6, 20.9, 20.13, 21.9, 21.14, 24.13, 26.1, 31.2, 32.56 s 20 .… 32.62 s 20(3) .… 32.62 s 34 .… 32.78 s 38(1) .… 22.51

s 40(2)(a) .… 29.3 s 44 .… 4.21 s 44(1) .… 24.15 s 44(5) .… 24.15 s 45 .… 14.5 s 49 .… 2.13 s 50 .… 32.39, 32.77 s 50(2) .… 32.77 s 50(3) .… 32.77 s 52 .… 3.4, 14.4, 15.2 s 53 .… 1.35, 14.4, 32.18 s 53(1) .… 2.3, 2.7 s 53(1)(c) .… 1.37 s 56 .… 32.79 s 64 .… 3.32 s 69 .… 32.49 s 76 .… 1.31, 3.11, 3.19 s 77 .… 1.31 s 77(1) .… 20.23 s 84 .… 12.22 s 86 .… 12.25, 12.31, 21.5, 21.9, 25.14 s 87 .… 21.5, 22.29 s 88 .… 20.49 s 90 .… 21.9, 21.17, 21.20, 22.18, 22.45 s 90(1) .… 21.18 s 90(2) .… 21.20

s 91 .… 20.50, 21.9, 21.12, 22.42, 32.3, 33.8 s 91(2) .… 21.21, 22.43 s 93 .… 31.2, 31.11 s 94 .… 25.10, 25.11, 25.12, 25.13, 25.14 s 94(1) .… 25.11, 25.13 s 94(1)(b) .… 25.8, 25.13 s 94(1)(c) .… 25.13, 25.14 s 94(2) .… 25.14 s 94(3) .… 25.11, 25.14 s 94(4) .… 25.11, 25.14, 26.1 s 95 .… 32.56 s 95(1) .… 32.56 s 95(2) .… 32.56 s 95(3) .… 32.56 s 95(4) .… 32.56 s 96 .… 3.32, 10.5, 22.42, 33.11 s 97 .… 32.80 s 98 .… 12.2, 33.14 s 98(1) .… 12.4 s 99 .… 3.12, 12.22, 12.28 s 99(2) .… 12.27, 19.32 s 99(3) .… 12.23 s 99(5) .… 12.23 s 99(6) .… 12.24, 12.27 s 99(7) .… 12.24 s 99(9) .… 12.24

s 99(11) .… 19.32 s 99(12) .… 12.24 s 99(15) .… 12.24 s 99(16) .… 12.23, 19.32 s 99(17) .… 12.23, 19.32 s 100 .… 12.30 s 100(2) .… 19.32 s 100(3) .… 12.31 s 100(4) .… 12.31 s 100(6) .… 12.31 s 100(8) .… 12.31 s 100(9) .… 12.31 s 100(11) .… 12.31 s 101 .… 1.35, 3.20, 6.16, 21.9, 21.18, 21.19, 21.20 s 101(1) .… 20.6, 21.20, 21.21 s 101(1)(a) .… 20.5, 20.6, 20.11, 21.20 s 101(1)(b) .… 19.39 s 101(1)(c) .… 18.3 s 101(2) .… 20.7 s 101(3) .… 18.3, 20.6 s 101(4) .… 18.3, 20.6 s 102 .… 18.3 s 103 .… 20.11 s 103(a) .… 20.13, 20.14 s 104 .… 21.19 s 104–106 .… 15.2

s 104(1) .… 20.49, 21.20 s 104(2) .… 20.19 s 105 .… 1.53, 10.12, 20.43, 21.16, 21.20, 42.9 s 106(1) .… 20.9 s 106(2) .… 20.8 s 106(4) .… 20.8 s 107(1) .… 20.41 s 107(2) .… 20.43 s 108 .… 3.20 s 109 .… 2.8, 19.11 s 109(1) .… 18.3, 18.7 s 109(2) .… 18.5, 18.14 s 109(3) .… 18.9, 20.51 s 109(4) .… 18.9 s 109(5) .… 18.17 s 109(6) .… 18.15 s 109(7) .… 18.9 s 110 .… 18.16 s 111 .… 20.11, 23.3 s 112 .… 11.2, 32.50, 33.18 s 112(4) .… 11.32 s 113 .… 14.8, 24.34 s 114–119 .… 15.5 s 115 .… 14.3, 14.10, 22.17, 32.58, 32.62, 32.64, 34.3 s 115(1) .… 32.59, 32.65 s 115(1)(a) .… 32.60

s 115(2) .… 32.60 s 115(3) .… 32.60, 36.9 s 115(4) .… 32.60, 32.62 s 115(5) .… 32.59 s 115(6) .… 32.62 s 115(7) .… 32.60, 32.71 s 115(8) .… 32.60, 32.66 s 115(9) .… 32.60, 32.64 s 116 .… 32.62 s 123 .… 3.12 s 124 .… 32.66 s 134 .… 1.37, 6.4, 6.7, 6.14, 6.15, 14.2, 14.4, 14.11, 15.2, 17.3, 32.68 s 141 .… 12.3, 12.13, 19.30 s 141(2) .… 12.3 s 141(4) .… 12.3 s 142 .… 12.13 s 146 .… 3.3, 12.11, 37.9 s 146(1) .… 19.10 s 146(2) .… 24.12 s 146(4) .… 3.27, 37.11 s 151 .… 12.13 s 152 .… 12.24, 12.26 s 153 .… 3.27, 32.91 s 154 .… 32.79 s 172 .… 13.5 s 172(1) .… 13.5

s 172(3) .… 13.6 s 173 .… 13.9 s 174 .… 13.9 s 175 .… 13.14 s 175(2) .… 13.14 s 179 .… 22.18 s 183 .… 24.15 s 185 .… 36.2 s 198 .… 20.16 s 198(6) .… 20.16 s 199 .… 24.13, 25.14 s 199(1) .… 20.20, 24.14, 27.16 s 202 .… 32.77 s 205 .… 24.12 s 209 .… 7.6 s 209–214 .… 24.51 s 209–218 .… 7.6 s 213 .… 7.6 s 221–223 .… 11.5 s 248 .… 3.3 Pt I .… 25.13, 27.1 Pt I Div 3 .… 21.9 Pt IV .… 11.5 Pt IV Div 3 .… 21.9 Sch 4 Pt III .… 19.12 Sch 6 .… 32.59

Sch 7 Pt III .… 32.66 Sch 8 .… 3.4 Residential Tenancies Act 1997 .… 19.27 Pt 6 .… 12.11 Rules of Supreme Court r 73.02–73.09 .… 7.5 Settled Land Act 1958 .… 32.28 Solicitors’ (Professional Conduct and Practice) Rules 1984 r 5 .… 42.3 Supreme Court Act 1986 s 37(1) .… 18.18 s 37(2) .… 18.18 s 50 .… 11.19 s 52 .… 42.14 s 54 .… 39.42 s 56 .… 39.42 s 63 .… 42.10 s 73 .… 40.21 s 79 .… 37.9 s 80 .… 37.9 s 85 .… 37.9 s 101 .… 39.49 Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 O 25 .… 22.41 O 39 .… 18.19 O 53 .… 19.16

O 55 .… 21.24 O 63 .… 40.7 r 52.06 .… 40.27 r 53.01(2) .… 19.16 r 63.26 .… 40.1 r 73.01–73.11 .… 26.23 r 73.12 .… 26.23 r 73.13 .… 7.13 r 73.13–73.16 .… 26.23 Transfer of Land Act 1890 .… 21.5 s 63 .… 21.5 s 74 .… 21.5 s 89 .… 21.5 s 95 .… 21.5 s 99 .… 19.4 s 113 .… 21.5 s 114 .… 21.5 s 118 .… 21.5 s 121 .… 21.5 s 129 .… 21.5, 22.54 s 130 .… 21.5, 22.54 s 188 .… 21.5 s 226–230 .… 21.5 Transfer of Land Act 1958 .… 1.2, 4.6, 4.8, 4.27, 4.37, 13.9, 16.21, 19.7, 19.10, 19.23, 20.16, 21.5, 21.6, 21.9, 22.55, 31.11, 33.12 s 26C ff .… 27.1

s 27A .… 28.5 s 33–34A .… 28.5 s 34(1) .… 28.5 s 40 .… 28.3 s 40(1) .… 4.24, 22.52 s 40(2) .… 16.17, 17.1, 17.4, 28.3 s 42 .… 4.22, 4.40, 12.25, 19.18, 32.84 s 42(1)(a) .… 4.14 s 42(2)(b) .… 4.14 s 42(2)(d) .… 4.14 s 42(2)(e) .… 12.13, 12.18, 19.4, 24.21, 28.6 s 43 .… 19.18, 28.7, 28.9 s 44 .… 19.18 s 45 .… 4.33, 14.5 s 45(2) .… 4.33 s 46 .… 14.5, 17.5 s 46(1) .… 4.33 s 46(2) .… 17.5, 21.5, 32.5 s 51 .… 14.14 s 52 .… 24.51 s 52(5) .… 24.51 s 66(2) .… 12.18, 19.3 s 74 .… 12.25, 20.8 s 74(2) .… 4.1, 4.5, 19.11 s 75 .… 4.29 s 75A .… 4.30, 28.6

s 75(a) .… 17.1 s 75B .… 4.32, 28.1 s 76 .… 3.20, 20.14 s 76(1) .… 4.37, 20.14 s 76(2) .… 4.37 s 77 .… 20.14 s 77(1) .… 4.37, 20.5, 20.6, 20.14, 20.22, 20.40 s 77(3) .… 4.25, 10.12, 20.6, 20.44, 20.47 s 77(4) .… 20.20, 20.49 s 78 .… 4.36, 19.2, 19.7, 19.10, 19.25, 28.4 s 78(1) .… 12.3, 19.2, 19.7 s 78(1)(b) .… 19.5, 19.7, 19.25 s 79 .… 21.9 s 79(2)(c) .… 22.52 s 79(3) .… 22.53 s 79(4) .… 22.52, 22.53, 33.12 s 81 .… 4.9, 19.2, 19.7, 19.10, 19.25, 28.4 s 81(1) .… 12.3, 12.10, 12.11, 12.18, 19.4, 19.7, 19.25, 19.29 s 84(1) .… 4.38, 17.11 s 84(2) .… 4.38 s 86 .… 4.31 s 87 .… 32.56 s 89(1) .… 28.9 s 89A .… 4.27, 20.49 s 90(3) .… 4.27, 20.49 s 96 .… 4.31

s 100 .… 4.27 s 112(1) .… 32.5 s 113 .… 20.16, 22.52 s 118 .… 9.18 Pt IIIA .… 28.5 Pt IV Div 9 .… 19.11, 20.8 Sch 13 .… 12.25 Transfer of Land (Single Register) Act 1998 .… 27.1 Trustee Act 1958 .… 6.4, 11.13 s 20 .… 11.13 s 28(1) .… 32.49 s 28(3) .… 32.49 s 39 .… 13.51 s 45 .… 14.9 s 48 .… 32.79 s 51 .… 22.48, 32.79 s 52 .… 22.48 s 56 .… 21.19 s 58 .… 32.79 s 67 .… 8.6 s 69 .… 19.26, 20.45 Queensland Acquisition of Land Act 1967 s 20(1)(b) .… 5.4 s 32 .… 32.35 Bills of Sale and Other Instruments Act 1955 .… 9.16

Companies Act 1961 s 100(1) .… 9.16 s 100(3)(d) .… 6.18 Criminal Code Act 1899 s 70 .… 19.19 s 71 .… 19.19 Crown Lands Act .… 2.10 Duties Act s 252 .… 41.8 s 255 .… 41.8 Fair Trading Act 1989 Pt 3 .… 38.5 Industrial Relations Act 1999 .… 7.10 Land Act 1994 .… 9.6, 9.8 s 39 .… 2.10 s 300 .… 9.8 s 341 .… 9.8 s 345–347 .… 9.8 s 347 .… 9.8 Land Title Act 1994 .… 1.2, 21.6, 27.4 s 62 .… 14.5 s 65 .… 12.18 s 66 .… 19.3 s 74 .… 12.3, 19.5 s 75 .… 4.24 s 77 .… 28.6

s 78 .… 12.3, 19.5, 19.8, 28.4 s 79 .… 20.49 s 81 .… 4.38 s 98–108 .… 4.40 s 108 .… 4.40 s 110A .… 21.6 s 117–119 .… 24.51 s 120 .… 24.51 s 122(1) .… 28.9 s 124(2)(c) .… 20.49 s 174 .… 28.5 s 175 .… 28.5 s 176 .… 16.17, 28.3 s 178 .… 2.10, 28.5 s 181 .… 12.25, 28.3 s 184 .… 4.14, 4.22, 12.25, 19.18, 28.7 s 185 .… 4.14, 4.22, 12.18, 12.25, 19.18 s 185(1)(b) .… 4.14, 12.13 Limitation of Actions Act 1974 .… 14.1, 16.22 s 10(1)(a) .… 16.17 s 13 .… 16.22 s 14–19 .… 16.22 s 20 .… 16.22, 32.84 s 24 .… 16.22 s 26 .… 16.22 s 26(1) .… 16.22

s 26(2) .… 16.22 s 26(4) .… 16.22 s 26(6) .… 16.22 s 29 .… 16.22 s 35–37 .… 16.22 s 38 .… 16.22 Partnership Act 1891 s 6 .… 6.22 s 6(3) .… 6.22 s 7 .… 6.22 s 34 .… 6.18 s 36 .… 6.18 Property Law Act 1974 .… 1.2, 1.19, 25.13, 27.4 s 5(1)(b) .… 27.4, 31.11, 32.56 s 6 .… 31.2 s 38 .… 11.5 s 44–48 .… 3.52 s 77(1)(b)(i) .… 4.37 s 78 .… 17.1 s 78(1) .… 39.42 s 81 .… 12.2, 12.4 s 82 .… 25.10 s 82(1)(b) .… 25.8, 25.13, 25.14 s 83(1)(a) .… 3.4, 4.37, 20.6 s 83(1)(b) .… 19.39 s 83(1)(c) .… 18.3

s 83(1)(d) .… 41.21 s 83(3) .… 41.21 s 83(4) .… 41.21 s 84 .… 20.14 s 84(3) .… 4.37 s 85 .… 18.3, 18.13, 20.29 s 85(1) .… 20.6, 20.22 s 85(5) .… 20.22 s 85(6) .… 20.22 s 86(1) .… 20.49 s 87 .… 20.19 s 88 .… 20.43, 20.44 s 89(4) .… 20.8 s 90 .… 19.8 s 94(2) .… 25.13 s 94(3)(b) .… 32.56 s 95 .… 3.15, 21.7 s 96 .… 20.11, 32.37 s 96(1) .… 18.3 s 97 .… 20.40 s 98 .… 31.2, 31.11 s 99 .… 21.12, 21.21 s 99(2) .… 21.12 s 99(7) .… 21.17 s 100 .… 20.50 s 101 .… 32.39

s 117 .… 12.3, 12.13 s 118 .… 12.13 s 199 .… 6.4, 25.13 s 200 .… 6.4 s 228 .… 13.5 s 229 .… 13.9 s 241 .… 27.3, 27.4 s 241–249 .… 27.1 s 241(1)(a) .… 27.3 s 246 .… 27.4, 27.5, 27.10, 27.11 s 247 .… 27.14 s 249 .… 27.16 s 346 .… 24.13 s 346(1) .… 27.16 s 347 .… 20.16 Form 4 Version 1 .… 20.14 Pt 18 Div 3 .… 27.5 Pt I .… 25.13 Real Property Act 1877 .… 22.55 s 51 .… 9.23 Residential Tenancies Act 1975 Pt 3 .… 12.11 Sale of Goods Act 1896 s 3(2) .… 5.121 Subcontractors’ Charges Act 1974 .… 7.10 Succession Act 1981 s 57 .… 16.9

s 61(1) .… 29.2 Supreme Court Act 1995 s 48 .… 39.49 s 246 .… 18.18 Supreme Court Rules r 874–880 .… 26.23 Trusts Act 1973 .… 21.6, 22.55 s 82 .… 22.48 s 83 .… 22.48 s 89 .… 21.6, 22.55 Trusts Act 1981 s 64 .… 13.51 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 r 882 .… 26.23 South Australia Administration and Probate Act 1919 s 52 .… 29.2 s 60 .… 16.9 s 61 .… 16.9 Crown Lands Act 1929 .… 9.6 Enforcement of Judgments Act 1991 s 8 .… 26.23 Fair Trading Act 1987 Pt 3 .… 38.5 Home Improvement Act 1940 s 23 .… 38.1

Land Acquisition Act 1969 s 26A .… 32.35 Law of Property Act 1936 .… 1.2, 1.19 s 14 .… 12.2, 12.4 s 15 .… 6.4 s 17(2) .… 32.62 s 27 .… 32.39, 32.77 s 43 .… 20.50, 21.18 s 44 .… 21.12 s 44(6) .… 21.17 s 45 .… 32.56 s 47(1)(a) .… 20.6 s 47(1)(b) .… 19.39 s 47(1)(c) .… 18.3 s 48 .… 20.14 s 49(1) .… 20.49 s 49(2) .… 20.19 s 50 .… 20.43 s 52 .… 19.8 s 55A .… 18.3, 19.2, 19.8, 20.14, 21.5, 22.52 s 55B(1) .… 20.15 s 55B(2) .… 32.12 s 55B(3) .… 21.6 s 86(1) .… 13.5 s 87 .… 13.9 s 88 .… 13.14

s 112 .… 20.16 s 117(1) .… 24.13, 27.16 s 132 .… 20.14 Pt 8 .… 11.5 Limitation of Actions Act 1936 .… 14.1, 16.23 s 4 .… 16.23 s 5–17 .… 16.23 s 27 .… 16.23 s 27(1) .… 32.84 s 28 .… 16.23 s 33 .… 16.23 s 34 .… 16.23 s 35 .… 16.23 s 35(a) .… 16.17 s 36 .… 16.23 s 37 .… 16.23 s 39 .… 16.23 s 45 .… 16.23 Misrepresentation Act 1971 .… 13.40 Partnership Act 1891 s 2 .… 6.22 s 2(III) .… 6.22 s 31 .… 6.18, 6.22 s 33 .… 6.18 Real Property Act 1886 .… 1.2, 16.23, 27.6 s 54 .… 28.5

s 56 .… 28.5 s 56(1a) .… 28.5 s 56A .… 28.5 s 57 .… 16.17, 28.3 s 64 .… 4.38 s 67 .… 22.52, 28.3 s 69 .… 4.18, 4.22, 12.25, 19.18 s 69(b) .… 4.21 s 69(d) .… 4.14 s 69 Pt VIII .… 4.14, 12.13, 12.18 s 69V .… 4.14 s 70 .… 19.18 s 72 .… 19.18 s 105–110 .… 24.51 s 118 .… 12.18, 19.3 s 129 .… 12.25 s 131 .… 32.56 s 133 .… 4.37 s 135 .… 20.44 s 135A .… 20.44 s 136 .… 20.49 s 137 .… 12.3, 19.2, 19.5, 19.8, 28.4 s 140 .… 22.52 s 141 .… 22.53 s 143 .… 4.38 s 186 .… 19.18, 28.7

s 187 .… 19.18, 28.7 s 191 .… 28.9 s 207 .… 19.18 s 251 .… 4.40 s 276 .… 20.16 Registration of Deeds Act 1935 .… 3.52, 27.1 s 5(1) .… 27.3 s 9 .… 27.4 s 10(1) .… 27.3 s 10(2) .… 27.6, 27.11, 27.15 s 10(3) .… 27.10 s 10(4) .… 27.6 s 28 .… 27.16 Sale of Goods Act 1895 s 2(2) .… 5.121 Supreme Court Act 1935 s 29 .… 18.18 s 114 .… 39.49 Trustee Act 1936 s 36 .… 22.48 s 37 .… 22.48 s 41 .… 22.48 Workers Liens Act 1893 .… 7.10 Western Australia Administration Act 1903 s 10 .… 11.16

s 10A .… 16.9 Administration and Probate Act 1935 s 35 .… 29.2 Age of Majority Act 1972 .… 16.24 Criminal Code Compilation Act 1913 s 69 .… 19.19 s 70 .… 19.19 Fair Trading Act 2010 .… 38.5 Land Act 1933 .… 9.6 Land Administration Act 1997 s 257 .… 32.35 Limitation Act 1935 .… 14.1, 16.24 s 29 .… 32.84 s 38(1)(c)(v) .… 16.17 Limitation Act 2005 .… 16.17, 16.24 s 5 .… 16.24 s 9 .… 16.24 s 13 .… 16.24 s 15 .… 16.24 s 16 .… 16.24 s 18 .… 16.24 s 19 .… 16.24 s 20 .… 16.24 s 22 .… 16.24 s 23 .… 16.24 s 24 .… 16.24

s 25 .… 16.24 s 29 .… 16.24 s 30 .… 16.24 s 32 .… 16.24 s 34 .… 16.24 s 35 .… 16.24 s 38 .… 16.24 s 40 .… 16.24 s 41 .… 16.24 s 44 .… 16.24 s 65–73 .… 16.24 Pt 2 Div 3 .… 16.24 Pt 3 .… 16.24 Pt 3 Div 1 .… 16.24 Pt 3 Div 2 .… 16.24 Pt 3 Div 3 .… 16.24 Pt 3 Div 4 .… 16.24 Partnership Act 1895 s 8 .… 6.22 s 8(3) .… 6.22 s 9 .… 6.22 s 42 .… 6.18 s 44 .… 6.18 Property Law Act 1969 .… 1.2, 1.19, 4.14, 7.4 s 7 .… 31.2 s 19(1) .… 12.2, 12.4

s 20 .… 6.4 s 20(3) .… 6.4 s 22(2) .… 32.62 s 53 .… 21.5, 22.29 s 53(2) .… 21.5 s 54 .… 20.50, 21.18 s 55 .… 21.12 s 55(7) .… 21.17 s 56 .… 31.2, 31.11 s 57(1)(a) .… 20.6 s 57(1)(b) .… 19.39 s 57(1)(c) .… 18.3 s 58 .… 21.5 s 59 .… 20.14 s 60(1) .… 20.49 s 60(2) .… 20.19 s 61 .… 20.43 s 68 .… 21.5 s 72 .… 12.11 s 77 .… 12.3, 12.13 s 78 .… 12.13 s 82 .… 21.5 s 88 .… 21.5 s 89(1) .… 13.5 s 90 .… 13.9 s 91 .… 13.9

s 92 .… 13.14 s 105 .… 21.5 s 106 .… 21.5 s 110 .… 21.5 s 113 .… 21.5 s 122 .… 21.5 s 133 .… 21.5 s 135 .… 20.16 s 220 .… 21.5 s 221 .… 21.5 s 226 .… 21.5 s 227 .… 21.5 s 228 .… 21.5 Pt XIV .… 11.5 Registration of Deeds Act 1856 .… 3.52, 27.1 s 2 .… 27.3 s 3 .… 27.3, 27.7, 27.10, 27.11 s 15 .… 27.16 s 16 .… 27.16 Sale of Goods Act 1895 s 60(2) .… 5.121 Supreme Court Act 1935 s 25(9) .… 18.18 s 142 .… 39.49 Transfer of Land Act 1893 .… 1.2, 22.52, 31.11 s 52 .… 28.5

s 53 .… 28.5 s 54 .… 28.5 s 56 .… 28.5 s 58 .… 22.52, 28.3 s 68 .… 4.14, 4.22, 12.13, 12.18, 12.25, 19.18 s 85 .… 16.17, 28.3 s 91 .… 12.18, 19.3 s 105 .… 12.25 s 106 .… 20.16 s 106–108 .… 20.14 s 107 .… 4.37 s 108 .… 4.37 s 109 .… 20.44 s 110 .… 20.49 s 111 .… 12.3, 19.2, 19.5, 19.25, 28.4 s 113 .… 17.1 s 116 .… 12.3, 12.10, 12.11, 12.18, 19.2,19.4, 19.7, 19.25, 19.29 s 121 .… 22.52 s 122 .… 22.53 s 123 .… 4.38 s 128A .… 32.56 s 133 .… 24.51 s 134 .… 19.18, 28.7 s 137 .… 28.9 s 146–150 .… 28.8 s 199 .… 19.18

s 202 .… 19.18 s 222 .… 4.40 s 240 .… 20.16 Trustees Act 1962 s 61 .… 13.51 s 78 .… 22.48 s 79 .… 22.48 Workmen’s Wages Act 1898 .… 7.10 Tasmania Administration and Probate Act 1935 s 34(1) .… 16.9 s 39 .… 11.16 Australian Consumer Law (Tasmania) Act 2010 .… 38.5 Contractors’ Debts Act 1939 .… 7.10 Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1884 .… 1.2, 1.19, 20.11, 32.66 s 4 .… 32.39, 32.77 s 5(1) .… 24.13, 27.16 s 10 .… 12.13 s 11 .… 12.13 s 11(5) .… 12.2 s 17 .… 32.56 s 19 .… 12.22 s 20 .… 12.30 s 21(1)(a) .… 20.6 s 21(1)(b) .… 19.39 s 21(1)(c) .… 18.3

s 21(1)(d) .… 41.21 s 21(2) .… 41.21 s 21(3) .… 41.21 s 22(1) .… 20.14 s 22(4) .… 20.11 s 23(1) .… 20.49 s 23(2) .… 20.19 s 23(3) .… 20.43 s 27 .… 21.12 s 28 .… 32.66 s 31 .… 32.66 s 31A .… 14.10, 32.58, 32.60 s 32(2) .… 32.62 s 38 .… 25.10 s 40(1) .… 13.5 s 41 .… 13.9 s 42 .… 13.14 s 69 .… 32.49 s 83 .… 32.91 s 85 .… 20.16 s 86 .… 6.4 s 91 .… 32.56 Sch 1 Pt 1 .… 32.66 Sch 4 .… 32.56 Criminal Code Act 1924 s 79 .… 19.19

Crown Lands Act 1976 .… 9.6 s 25 .… 9.9 Duties Act s 142 .… 41.8 s 143 .… 41.8 Evidence Act 2001 s 155 .… 27.16 s 156 .… 27.16 Land Acquisition Act 1993 .… 32.35 Land Titles Act 1980 .… 1.2, 16.25, 28.8 s 33(11) .… 28.5 s 40 .… 12.25, 19.18 s 40(3)(b) .… 4.14, 4.22 s 40(3)(c) .… 4.14 s 40(3)(d) .… 4.14, 12.13, 12.18 s 40(3)(h) .… 4.40 s 41 .… 19.18, 28.7 s 42 .… 19.18 s 47 .… 19.18 s 48(7) .… 16.17, 28.3 s 49 .… 28.3 s 49(1) .… 22.52 s 52 .… 28.8 s 61 .… 24.51 s 64(3) .… 19.3 s 72 .… 12.25

s 75(1) .… 4.6 s 76 .… 28.1, 28.6 s 77 .… 20.14 s 77(1) .… 20.16 s 78 .… 4.37, 20.44 s 78(1) .… 20.14, 20.22, 20.23 s 81 .… 20.49 s 82 .… 12.3, 19.2, 19.8, 28.4 s 85 .… 22.52 s 86(1) .… 22.53 s 86(2) .… 22.53 s 89 .… 4.38 s 133 .… 28.9 s 146 .… 19.5 s 168 .… 20.16 s 170(2)(b) .… 28.8 Limitation Act 1974 .… 14.1, 16.25, 32.91 s 4(1)(a) .… 16.17 s 4(2) .… 16.25 s 4(5) .… 16.25 s 10(1) .… 16.25 s 10(2) .… 16.25 s 10(3) .… 16.25 s 11 .… 16.25 s 12 .… 16.25 s 13 .… 16.25

s 18 .… 16.25, 32.84 s 21 .… 16.25 s 23(1) .… 16.25 s 23(2) .… 16.25 s 23(3) .… 16.25 s 26 .… 16.25 s 27 .… 16.25 s 34 .… 16.25 Pt III Div 2 .… 16.25 Pt III Div 3 .… 16.25 Partition Act 1869 .… 11.5 Partnership Act 1891 s 7 .… 6.22 s 7(c) .… 6.22 s 8 .… 6.22 s 36 .… 6.18 s 38 .… 6.18 Registration of Deeds Act 1935 .… 3.52, 27.1, 27.8 s 3 .… 27.4 s 3(b) .… 27.3 s 5 .… 27.3 s 9 .… 27.5, 27.11 s 10 .… 27.8 s 11 .… 7.4, 27.3 Sale of Goods Act 1896 s 3(2) .… 5.121

Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act 1932 s 10 .… 12.3 s 11(5) .… 12.4 s 11(12) .… 18.18 s 165 .… 39.49 s 166–168 .… 26.23 Supreme Court Rules 2000 r 930–935 .… 26.23 r 936 .… 26.23 r 937 .… 26.23 Trustee Act 1898 s 30 .… 13.51 s 33 .… 22.48 s 34 .… 22.48 s 38 .… 21.17 Northern Territory Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act Pt 4 .… 38.5 Limitation Act 1981 s 26 .… 32.84 s 27(1)(b) .… 16.26 s 27(1)(c) .… 16.26 Sale of Goods Act 1954 s 5(2) .… 5.121 Australian Capital Territory

Fair Trading (Australian Consumer Law) Act 1992 .… 38.5 Land Titles Act 1925 s 96 .… 19.8 Law Reform (Misrepresentation) Act 1977 .… 13.40 Limitation Act 1985 s 23 .… 32.84 s 24(1)(b) .… 16.26 s 24(1)(c) .… 16.26 Sale of Goods Act 1954 s 4(a) .… 5.121 United Kingdom Access to Justice Act 1999 s 10(7) .… 7.1 Administration of Estates Act 1925 .… 29.2 s 25 .… 30.2 Administration of Justice Act 1970 s 36 .… 19.19 Bills of Sale Act 1878 .… 1.20, 31.7 Chancery Procedure Act 1852 .… 21.15 s 48 .… 21.18, 21.21 Civil Procedure Act 1833 .… 16.18 s 3 .… 16.18 Civil Procedure Rules r 40.15–40.19 .… 21.24 r 73.11–73.15 .… 26.23 r 73.13 .… 26.23

r 73.14 .… 26.23 r 73.16–73.21 .… 26.23 Practice Direction 40D .… 21.24 Common Law Procedure Act 1852 .… 37.9 s 210–212 .… 3.3 Companies Act 1862 .… 6.4, 11.41 Companies Act 1985 s 360 .… 26.12 Companies Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 .… 26.12 Conveyancing Act 1881 .… 20.4, 20.50, 21.21 s 3 .… 24.13, 24.14 s 11(1) .… 12.13 s 16 .… 22.42 s 17 .… 31.2 s 18 .… 12.22 s 18(3)(i) .… 12.23 s 21(2) .… 20.20 s 25 .… 21.12 s 25(1) .… 21.14 s 25(2) .… 21.14, 21.21 s 70 .… 24.12 Conveyancing Act 1882 s 3(1) .… 20.20 Conveyancing Act 1911 s 2 .… 12.3 s 3 .… 12.30

s 5(1) .… 20.20 County Courts Act 1888 .… 21.15 English Building Societies Act 1836 s 5 .… 32.57 Factors Act 1889 .… 5.14, 5.104, 11.24 Forcible Entry Act 1381 .… 19.19 General Rate Act 1967 s 17A .… 19.39 s 17B .… 19.39 Grantees of Reversions Act 1540 .… 12.3, 12.13 Highways Act .… 19.39 Insolvency Act 1986 s 423(2) .… 13.5 Insolvency Act 1996 s 339 .… 13.4 Insolvency Rules 1986 .… 23.5 Judgments Act 1838 .… 7.4 s 14 .… 7.5 Judgments Act 1873 s 25(6) .… 6.4 Judicature Act 1873 .… 1.14, 7.8, 24.4, 24.40 s 25(5) .… 12.2 Judicature Act 1875 .… 24.4, 24.40 Land Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 s 63 .… 5.4 Land Registration Act 1925

s 34(2) .… 19.43 s 75 .… 19.43 Law of Property Act 1925 .… 1.2, 1.3, 6.4, 20.11, 22.12, 31.2, 32.57 s 3(i) .… 12.23 s 23 .… 7.12 s 44(1) .… 24.15 s 44(5) .… 24.15 s 53(1)(c) .… 1.37, 6.24 s 85(3) .… 1.13 s 86(3) .… 1.13 s 90 .… 21.19, 22.18, 22.45 s 90(1) .… 21.14, 21.18, 21.20 s 90(2) .… 21.20 s 91 .… 21.10, 21.12, 21.18, 21.19, 21.21,22.42 s 91(1) .… 21.14, 21.15, 21.19, 21.21 s 91(2) .… 20.24, 21.14, 21.15, 21.16, 21.19, 21.21, 21.22, 21.23, 21.24, 22.42, 22.43 s 91(3) .… 21.16, 21.23, 21.24 s 91(4) .… 21.16 s 91(7) .… 21.17, 21.19 s 93 .… 31.2 s 93(1) .… 31.2 s 94 .… 25.10, 26.1 s 94(4) .… 26.1 s 96(1) .… 22.42 s 98 .… 3.52, 12.2

s 99 .… 12.4, 12.22, 12.24, 12.26, 12.28, 12.30, 19.32 s 99(2) .… 12.23, 12.27, 19.32 s 99(3)(i) .… 12.23 s 99(6) .… 12.27 s 99(7) .… 12.24 s 99(9) .… 12.23 s 99(10) .… 12.23 s 99(11) .… 12.24 s 99(13) .… 19.32 s 99(14) .… 12.24 s 99(17) .… 12.24 s 99(18) .… 12.23, 19.32 s 99(19) .… 12.23, 19.32 s 100 .… 12.23, 12.30 s 100(2) .… 19.32 s 100(3) .… 12.31 s 100(4) .… 12.31 s 100(6) .… 12.31 s 100(8) .… 12.31 s 100(9) .… 12.31 s 100(11) .… 12.31 s 100(12) .… 12.23 s 101 .… 2.8, 6.16, 20.50, 21.18, 21.19,21.20 s 101(1) .… 21.20, 21.21 s 101(1)(a) .… 21.20 s 101(1)(i) .… 20.5

s 101(1)(ii) .… 19.39 s 101(1)(iv) .… 41.21 s 101(4) .… 19.39 s 104 .… 20.50, 21.19 s 104(1) .… 21.20 s 104(2) .… 20.19 s 105 .… 21.16, 21.20 s 113 .… 24.34 s 114 .… 14.3 s 115 .… 22.17 s 134 .… 6.6, 6.9 s 136 .… 6.4, 6.24 s 136(1) .… 6.4, 6.5, 6.19 s 137 .… 1.37, 6.8, 26.8, 26.15 s 137(1) .… 6.8 s 137(3) .… 6.14, 26.18 s 138 .… 1.37 s 141 .… 12.3, 19.30 s 141(1) .… 12.3 s 141(2) .… 12.3 s 141(3) .… 12.3 s 141(4) .… 12.3 s 142(1) .… 12.13 s 152 .… 12.26 s 152(1) .… 12.24 s 172 .… 13.5

s 173 .… 13.9 s 173(2) .… 31.9 s 174 .… 6.23, 13.9, 13.14 s 181 .… 22.18 s 183 .… 24.15 s 198 .… 24.8 s 199 .… 25.14 s 199(1)(ii) .… 24.14 s 204 .… 24.12 s 205(1)(xix) .… 12.23 s 205(1)(xvi) .… 12.23 s 205(1)(xxi) .… 24.13 s 205(1)(xxiii) .… 12.24 Sch 2 Pt III .… 19.12 Limitation Act 1939 .… 16.17 Limitations Act 1980 s 16 .… 19.43 s 17 .… 19.43 s 32(3) .… 16.36 s 32(4) .… 16.36 Locke King’s Act 1854 (17 & 18 Vict c 113) .… 29.2, 29.3 Locke King’s Act 1867 (30 & 31 Vict c 69) .… 29.2, 29.3 Locke King’s Act 1877 (40 & 41 Vict c 34) .… 29.2, 29.3 Locke King’s Acts .… 29.2, 29.4, 30.10 Lock King’s Act 1867 (30 & 31 Vict c 69) s 2 .… 29.2

Manchester Ship Canal Act 1885 .… 21.21 Mercantile Law Amendment Act 1856 .… 42.14 Merchant Shipping Act 1894 .… 9.14, 9.23, 9.24, 9.28, 16.20 s 33 .… 9.23 s 35 .… 9.23 s 56 .… 9.23 s 57 .… 9.23 Pt I .… 9.14 Misrepresentation Act 1967 .… 13.40 s 1 .… 13.40 s 2(2) .… 13.40 Mortgagees Legal Costs Act 1895 .… 42.10 National Debt Act 1870 s 22 .… 6.4 Partnership Act 1890 .… 11.25, 11.28 s 2 .… 6.22 s 2(3) .… 6.22 s 5 .… 11.25, 11.27 s 31 .… 6.18, 11.28 s 33 .… 6.18, 11.28 Public Health Act 1936 .… 19.39 Real Property Limitation Act 1833 .… 16.18, 16.19, 16.24, 32.90 s 28(3) .… 16.20 s 42 .… 16.18 Real Property Limitation Act 1874 .… 16.18, 16.19, 16.24 s 2 .… 16.31

s 4 .… 16.24 s 8 .… 16.18, 16.29 Rules of Supreme Court O 21 .… 22.41 O 113 .… 19.16 Sales of Reversions Act 1867 .… 13.14 Satisfied Terms Act 1845 .… 32.62 Settled Land Act 1925 s 71 .… 11.11 Solicitors Act 1860 .… 2.42 Solicitors Act 1974 s 2 .… 42.10 s 55 .… 42.10 s 69(1) .… 42.3 Statute of 1571 .… 13.5 Statute of Frauds 1677 s 9 .… 6.24 Statute of Limitations 1623 s 3 .… 16.17 s 7 .… 16.17 Trustee Act 1925 s 33 .… 13.51 s 33(3) .… 13.51 s 63 .… 19.26 Uniform Contract Terms Act 1977 .… 6.8 Usury Act 1545 .… 1.13

Voluntary Conveyances Act 1893 .… 13.9 United States Uniform Commercial Code .… 5.4, 5.23, 5.43,5.44, 5.50, 5.79, 5.85, 5.93, 5.94, 5.104, 5.121 § 2-401(2) .… 5.82 § 8-106 .… 5.50 § 9-102(a)(1) .… 5.94 § 9-102(a)(11) .… 5.22 § 9-102(a)(20) .… 5.23 § 9-102(a)(43) .… 5.121 § 9-103 .… 5.81 § 9-103(e) .… 5.85 § 9-103(e)(1) .… 5.85 § 9-103(f)(1) .… 5.85 § 9-103(f)(2) .… 5.85 § 9-103(f)(3) .… 5.86 § 9-104(2) .… 5.51 § 9-104(3) .… 5.51 § 9-107(b) .… 5.82 § 9-109(a)(1) .… 5.15 § 9-305 .… 5.44 § 9-312(4) .… 5.87 § 9-313(1) .… 5.42 § 9-324(a) .… 5.87 § 9-402 .… 5.41 § 9-501 .… 5.136

§ 9-506 .… 5.136 § 9-610 .… 5.121 § 9-627 .… 5.121 § 9-627(b)(3) .… 5.121 Article 8 .… 5.50 Article 9 .… 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, 5.26, 5.30, 5.35,5.43, 5.50, 5.51, 5.94, 5.116, 5.121, 5.136 Wisconsin Statutes § 409.501 .… 5.136 New Zealand Administration Act 1969 s 31 .… 16.9 Deeds Registration Act 1908 .… 27.1 s 9 .… 27.3 s 35 .… 27.9, 27.10 s 36 .… 27.10 s 39 .… 27.11, 27.13 Land Transfer Act 1915 s 105 .… 19.6 Land Transfer Act 1952 .… 13.9 s 34(1) .… 28.5 s 37 .… 28.5 s 62(a) .… 4.14 s 62(b) .… 4.14 s 63(1)(e) .… 4.14 s 100 .… 19.2

s 103 .… 28.6 s 109 .… 19.2 s 137 .… 28.9 s 182 .… 13.9, 28.7 s 183 .… 13.9 Personal Property Securities Act 1999 .… 5.1, 5.4, 5.93, 5.137 s 16 .… 5.23 s 16(1) .… 5.25, 5.125 s 17(3) .… 5.20 s 18 .… 5.42 s 25(1) .… 5.121 s 36(1)(b)(i) .… 5.38 s 56 .… 5.106 s 66(b)(ii) .… 5.77 s 79 .… 5.95 s 80 .… 5.95 s 81 .… 5.95 s 125 .… 5.97 s 130 .… 5.97 s 132(1) .… 5.136 s 133 .… 5.137 s 134 .… 5.137 Property Law Act 1952 s 61 .… 13.9 s 62 .… 13.14 s 85 .… 31.2

s 90 .… 32.37 s 98 .… 32.39 s 102A .… 32.39 s 112 .… 12.3, 12.13 s 113 .… 12.13 s 130 .… 6.4 Property Law Act 2007 s 5(1) .… 24.15 s 43 .… 24.12 s 89–94 .… 25.10 s 117 .… 21.1 s 233 .… 19.30 Sch 6 .… 24.15 Trustee Act 1956 s 42 .… 13.51 Canada Alberta Personal Property Security Act 2000 .… 5.93 s 1(1)(h) .… 5.23 s 1(1)(n) .… 5.125 s 1(1)(z) .… 5.25 s 24(1) .… 5.42 s 24(3) .… 5.4 s 27(1) .… 5.44 s 30(5) .… 5.106 s 35(1)(a)(ii) .… 5.77 s 38(2) .… 5.95

s 38(3)(b) .… 5.95 s 38(4)(b) .… 5.95 s 38(6) .… 5.95 s 38(7) .… 5.97 s 38(11) .… 5.97 s 38(12) .… 5.97 s 63(1) .… 5.136, 5.137 s 64 .… 5.137 s 66(1) .… 5.121 c P-7 .… 5.1 Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act 1985 c B-3 .… 5.9, 5.112 British Columbia Personal Property Security Act 1996 .… 5.4, 5.38, 5.93 s 1(1) .… 5.23, 5.25, 5.125 s 24(1) .… 5.42 s 24(3) .… 5.4 s 27(1) .… 5.44 s 35(1)(a)(ii) .… 5.77 s 38(2) .… 5.95 s 38(3)(b) .… 5.95 s 38(4)(b) .… 5.95 s 38(6) .… 5.95 s 38(7) .… 5.97 s 38(11) .… 5.97 s 38(12) .… 5.97 s 62(1)(b) .… 5.137

s 68(2) .… 5.121 c 38(3)(b)(ii) .… 5.95 c 359 .… 5.1 Manitoba Personal Property Security Act .… 5.93 s 1 .… 5.23, 5.25, 5.125 s 24(1) .… 5.45 s 24(3) .… 5.4 s 35(1)(a)(ii) .… 5.77 s 38(3)(b) .… 5.95 s 38(4)(b) .… 5.95 s 38(6) .… 5.95 s 38(7) .… 5.97 s 38(11) .… 5.97 s 38(12) .… 5.97 s 38(s) .… 5.95 s 62(1) .… 5.136 s 62(1)(b) .… 5.137 s 65(3) .… 5.121 c P35 .… 5.1 Nova Scotia Personal Property Security Act 1995–1996 .… 5.9 s 2(1)(h) .… 5.23 s 2(1)(y) .… 5.25 s 25(1) .… 5.42 s 66(2) .… 5.121 c 13 .… 5.1 Ontario Personal Property Security Act 1990 .… 5.42, 5.77, 5.93, 5.121,

5.137 s 1(1) .… 5.25, 5.125 s 11(2)(a)(i) .… 5.38 s 20(1)(b) .… 5.112 s 22(1) .… 5.42, 5.45 s 22(2) .… 5.4 s 24(1) .… 5.42 s 26(1) .… 5.44 s 30(1) .… 5.77 s 35(1)(a) .… 5.87 s 35(1)(b) .… 5.95 s 35(2)(a)(i) .… 5.95 s 35(3) .… 5.95 s 35(4) .… 5.97 s 35(8) .… 5.97 s 63(2) .… 5.121 s 66(1) .… 5.136 s 66(2) .… 5.137 c P310 .… 5.1 Ontario Repair and Storage Liens Act 1990 c R 25 .… 5.94 Saskatchewan Personal Property Security Act 1993 .… 5.93 s 2(1)(h) .… 5.23 s 2(1)(n) .… 5.4, 5.125 s 2(1)(y) .… 5.25 s 3(1) .… 5.20

s 20(2) .… 5.112 s 24(1) .… 5.42 s 24(3) .… 5.4, 5.49 s 27(1) .… 5.44 s 30(5) .… 5.106 s 34(5) .… 5.88 s 35(1)(a)(ii) .… 5.77 s 38(2) .… 5.95 s 38(3)(b) .… 5.95 s 38(4)(b) .… 5.95 s 38(6) .… 5.95 s 38(7) .… 5.97 s 38(11) .… 5.97 s 38(12) .… 5.97 s 62(1) .… 5.136 s 62(1)(b) .… 5.137 s 63(3) .… 5.121 c P-62 .… 5.1

Contents Preface Table of Cases Table of Statutes Introduction

Part I Mortgages and Charges 1. Mortgages and Other Securities Generally 2. Charges and Liens 3. Mortgages of Land at Common Law 4. Mortgages of Torrens System Land 5. Security Interests in Personal Property covered by the PPSA 6. Mortgages of Personal Property Not Affected By PPSA 7. Statutory Charges and Judgments 8. Debentures 9. Special Securities 10. Second and Subsequent Mortgages

Part II Parties to Mortgages 11. Parties to Mortgages

Part III The Mortgagor’s Rights

12. Mortgagor’s Rights

Part IV

Void or Imperfect Securities

13. Void or Imperfect Securities

Part V

Transfer and Devolution of Mortgages

14. Transfer and Devolution of Mortgages 15. Sub-mortgages

Part VI The Mortgagee’s Remedies 16. The Mortgagee’s Remedies 17. The Personal Remedy 18. The Appointment of a Receiver 19. The Mortgagee’s Right to Possession 20. The Mortgagee’s Power of Sale 21. Foreclosure and Judicial Sale 22. Procedure on Foreclosure 23. Insolvency of Mortgagor

Part VII Priorities of Mortgages 24. Priorities of Mortgages 25. Tacking Further Advances 26. Priority by Notice to Trustees 27. Effect of Registration of Deeds 28. Effect of the Torrens System

Part VIII Incidence of the Mortgage Debt

29. Incidence on the Death of the Mortgagor 30. Incidence as Between Different Properties 31. Consolidation

Part IX

Discharge of the Mortgage

32. Redemption 33. Redemption Proceedings 34. The Release of the Debt or Security 35. Waiver and Allied Concepts 36. Merger 37. Destruction or Loss of the Property 38. Discharge or Modification by Statute

Part X

Accounts and Costs

39. Accounts 40. Costs

Part XI Taxation Considerations 41. Taxation Considerations

Part XII Miscellaneous Matters 42. Miscellaneous Aspects of Mortgages Index

[page 1]

Introduction Form of the work Date of the work Comparable statutory provisions Acknowledgments Table of Comparable Sections

The first Australian edition of this work was produced in 1995 because it was felt that the reliance by Australian practitioners on English works on mortgages might shortly cease as England becomes more and more integrated into the Common Market and Australian law goes its own way. English mortgage law did not in fact so disintegrate; mainly it seems because of vital differences in the security law of the major mainland European countries, particularly Germany and France. For over a century works like Fisher and Lightwood have formed the dayto-day point of reference to the law for judges and academics as well as for the profession. The present authors considered then and still consider that this basic text deserves to be preserved and adapted to current Australian conditions so that it may be used for 100 years into the future. The first two Australian editions have been so well received that it is now widely considered the leading Australian work on mortgages and is widely cited in the courts. The time has now come for a third Australian edition.

Form of the work This third Australian edition follows the broad scheme of the previous edition save that the enactment of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth)

has required the rewriting of chapter 5 and consequential adjustments to the text. Otherwise, the work has been updated to deal with the many decisions on the subject that have issued from the courts since 2005. The area of forged mortgages appears to be the most prolific. We have also updated with respect to statutory amendment and further research put into the subject by the editors of the current 13th English edition.

Date of the work The law set out is as available in Australia as of 1 July 2013 though occasional authorities decided later have been noted where possible.

Law of Mortgage Comparable statutory provisions A table of comparable statutory provisions appears on pp 3–5.

Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge their debt to the authors of Ashburner’s Concise Treatise on Mortgages, Pledges and Liens (Butterworths, London, 1911); Sykes and Walker, Law of Securities, 5th ed (Law Book Co, Sydney, 1993); Meagher, Gummow and Lehane, Equity: Doctrines and Remedies, 4th ed (LexisNexis Butterworths, Sydney, 2002); and Croft and Hay, The Mortgagee’s Power of Sale, 3rd ed (LexisNexis Butterworths, Sydney, 2013). [page 2] These are referred to in the text as ‘Ashburner’; ‘Sykes and Walker’; ‘Meagher, Gummow and Lehane’ and ‘Croft and Hay’ respectively. The reference to ‘Halsbury’ is to the latest reissue of the relevant volume of the fifth edition of English Halsbury available in Sydney and Melbourne on 1 July 2013. Reference to other works quoted less frequently appear in the text.

Table of Comparable Sections [page 3]

[page 4]

[page 5]

[page 7]

Part I

Mortgages and Charges

[page 9]

Chapter 1

Mortgages and Other Securities Generally A. Introduction The mortgage in history Scope of the work Australian statutes History of mortgages B. Securities Generally The nature and kinds of security Real security Personal security Mortgages Definitional problems Charge Lien Pledge C. Mortgages Generally Legal mortgage Mortgages before the 1925 Reforms Equity of redemption

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14

The term ‘equity of redemption’ today Obligations under mortgages D. Mortgages of Land in Australia Australian mortgages Mortgages of Torrens system land E. Other Mortgages — Fixtures — Goodwill & Incidental Rights Fixtures Fixtures passing by mortgage of land Fixtures not passing Loose parts of fixtures Goodwill and other Incidental Rights F. Sales with Right of Repurchase Mortgage or absolute conveyance Construction as to the nature of the transaction Fraudulent or secret conveyance Mortgage or conveyance with option of repurchase The intent of the transaction

1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18

1.19 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.25 1.26 1.27 1.28

[page 10]

Test for meaning of instrument Defeasible purchase of equity of redemption Mortgage ‘as beneficial owner’ ‘Subject to mortgage’ G. Equitable Mortgages Generally Creation of equitable mortgages

1.29 1.30 1.31 1.32 1.33 1.34

Formal requirements Types of equitable mortgage Mortgages of equitable rights Equitable mortgages by legal owners Mortgages/charges in supply agreements Other examples of such mortgages Specific performance of agreements for mortgages Equitable charges distinguished from equitable mortgages H. Collateral Security Additional security I. Where mortgage situated Generally Situation when mortgage is transferred Proper law of mortgage debt when foreign element Foreigners’ interests in Australian mortgages J. Quasi-mortgage Quasi securities Romalpa clauses K. Set-off Set-off generally Set-off on accounts Transactional set-off Miscellaneous examples of set-off Set-off as quasi security L. Miscellaneous Mortgage Brokers and Originators Reverse mortgages

1.35 1.36 1.37 1.38 1.39 1.40 1.41 1.42

1.43 1.44 1.45 1.46 1.47 1.48 1.49 1.50 1.51 1.52 1.53 1.54 1.55 1.56

New types of security Phantom mortgages

1.57 1.58

Perpetuities Mortgages and equities

1.59 1.60

A. Introduction The mortgage in history Scope of the work 1.1 Doubtless when WR Fisher first wrote this work in 1856, the traditional mortgage over land was for the most part the most significant security in existence. However, over the next 150 years, various forms of quasi-mortgage have eclipsed the traditional [page 11] form. Had Fisher been composing this edition, he might well have entitled his work ‘Mortgages and Quasi Mortgages’ or, perhaps, ‘Securities’. This work commences with a focus on mortgages in their original form. This is because there must be an understanding of the concept of the original before there can be a proper consideration of the derivatives. Thus, Torrens system mortgages, while not within the pure definition of mortgages, are commonly referred to as mortgages and are the most significant security over land in Australia. The equitable charge, particularly the floating charge, is currently the most significant security granted by corporations. The equitable lien is the common device resorted to in order to provide a fair distribution of disputed funds. All these are considered in depth in this work. It was tempting to begin an Australian discussion of mortgages with a treatment of the Torrens mortgage. However, a moment’s consideration makes one resist that temptation as impossible to pursue. Although the Torrens mortgage sets up completely different relationships to the traditional

mortgage, for the most part, the traditional concepts of the law of mortgage underpin it. One cannot understand the Torrens mortgage without first having a good understanding of the law of mortgages generally. Additionally it must be kept in mind that mortgages and securities are not confined to land but extend to all species of alienable property, real or personal. Thus outside the Torrens system the general law of mortgages remains of primary relevance and importance.

Australian statutes 1.2 Because the applicable statutes in the law of mortgage are state Acts, it is too cumbersome to refer to each one. As a general rule this work refers in the text to the applicable New South Wales and Victorian provision only. The corresponding provision in the other states, England and New Zealand may be found in the Table of Comparable Sections in the Introduction. In situations where the precise text may be significant, the local statute should be examined, as a corresponding provision in the table does not necessarily indicate exact correspondence. The following abbreviations have been employed with reference to statutes: the NSW Act: Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) the Victorian Act: Property Law Act 1958 (Vic) the Queensland Act: Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) the South Australian Act: Law of Property Act 1936 (SA) the Western Australian Act: Property Law Act 1969 (WA) the Tasmanian Act: Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1884 (Tas) the English Act: Law of Property Act 1925 (UK) the NSW Torrens Act: Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) the Victorian Torrens Act: Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic) the Queensland Torrens Act: Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) the South Australian Torrens Act: Real Property Act 1886 (SA) the Western Australian Torrens Act: Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA)

the Tasmanian Torrens Act: Land Titles Act 1980 (Tas) the Corporations Act (Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)) the PPSA (Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth)). In each case the statutes are considered in their form as amended to 1 July 2013. [page 12]

History of mortgages 1.3 In almost all developed societies throughout the ages, it has been expedient for people to be able to borrow on security. The form of transaction has differed from age to age and from place to place. It is no part of the scope of this work to discuss these matters in detail. Pollock and Maitland, in The History of English Law, 2nd ed, Cambridge University Press, UK, 1898, pp 117–24, trace the history of gage of land. The word ‘gage’ connotes ‘security’. The explanation for the term ‘mort’ (or ‘dead’) gage appears differently from the writings of Glanvill, c 1187, and Littleton, c 1480. In Glanvill’s time the gage was dead because the gagee, who was in possession, took the rents and profits of the land for himself (as interest), the principal still remaining owing. By Littleton’s time it was said that the land was dead to the mortgagor if he did not repay the loan made. At the foundation of the Australian colonies and for some time before and afterwards, and in England at all material times prior to 1926, a mortgage of land took the form of a conveyance of the whole or part of the estate or interest of the debtor in real or personal property of which he had power to transfer with a proviso for reconveyance if the debt was repaid by the due date: see 1.13. The position changed drastically in Australia when the Torrens system was introduced in the 1860s. Under this system there was no conveyance but rather the memorandum of mortgage, executed by the registered proprietor when registered, conferred a legal interest on the mortgagee. The statutes provided a mechanism to enable the mortgagee to realise the land if default

was made. These matters are discussed in Chapter 4. Various amendments were made to conveyancing laws in Australia from 1880. These differed from state to state. An extensive enquiry was conducted by Harvey CJ in Eq in New South Wales. His report, printed in Butterworths Conveyancing Service, [35102], contained a draft bill that was enacted as the Conveyancing Act 1919, which came into force on 1 July 1920. Amendments of a substantial nature were made in 1930 as a result of the English reforms of 1925. The Conveyancing Act as amended is here referred to as ‘the NSW Act’. Most of the provisions of the NSW Act have now been enacted in the other states though not necessarily always in identical words. The English reforms of 1925 generally proceeded along a different path from those adopted here, though the Australian states have re-enacted verbatim many of the sections of the English Law of Property Act 1925, usually referred to in this work as ‘the English Act’. Under the English Act, a legal mortgage of land must be created by demise for a term of years, or by charge by way of legal mortgage, subject to a proviso for cesser on redemption. Care must be taken when applying English cases since 1925 as the legislative foundation for the law of mortgage is so different.

B. Securities Generally The nature and kinds of security 1.4 A creditor may be willing to rely solely on his debtor’s personal credit, and for that the creditor will want something more than a mere contractual remedy against a debtor who defaults. Indeed, in some cases, such as where a loan is by trustees, security may well be required by the terms of the trust deed or statute. That something more is achieved by taking security. As Goode notes in his Legal Problems of Credit and Security, 4th ed, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2008, p 30, there are only four kinds of consensual securities known to Australian law: (i) pledge (see 1.11); (ii) contractual lien (see Chapter 2); (iii) equitable charge (see Chapter 2); and (iv) mortgage. This categorization was applied by Finkelstein J in [page 13]

Beconwood Securities Pty Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2008) 246 ALR 361: 66 ACSR 116 (a case of a share lending agreement). Each kind is capable of being the subject of security so as to create a sub-security interest. A pledge and a contractual lien depend on delivery of possession to the creditor. The difference between them is that, in the case of pledge, the owner delivers possession to the creditor as security whereas in the case of lien, the creditor retains possession of goods previously delivered to it for some other purpose. Neither a mortgage nor a charge depends on delivery of possession. The difference between them is that a mortgage under the traditional old system title involves a transfer of legal or equitable ownership to the creditor whereas an equitable charge does not: Re Cosslett (Contractors) Ltd [1998] Ch 495 at 508; [1997] 4 All ER 115 at 126 per Millett LJ (cf the position with Torrens mortgages, as to which see Chapter 4). In its most primitive form, the word ‘security’ denotes something which makes the creditor more assured of being able to recover the debt as distinct from a mere acknowledgment such as an IOU: Bank of New Zealand v Assets Realisation Board (1905) 7 GLR 483 at 485. In this sense any slight advantage to the creditor may operate to justify calling the creditor a ‘secured creditor’: see Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases, 8th ed, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2012, p 2667; Batchelor & Co Pty Ltd v Websdale [1963] SR (NSW) 49 at 51; YZ Finance Co Pty Ltd v Cummings (1964) 109 CLR 395 at 403. In Bevham Investments Pty Ltd v Belgot Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 494 at 499, the High Court pointed out that the word ‘secure’ is apt to include personal security; see also Redgrave v Redgrave (1951) 82 CLR 521 at 530. This is, however, an unusual sense of the word in modern times. The prime sense of the word is a right given to the creditor over property or against a person over and above the personal obligation to repay the debt. In Singer v Williams [1921] 1 AC 41 the members of the House of Lords put forward various definitions of ‘securities’. Lord Shaw at 57 said that the word had no legal signification. It was ‘an ordinary English word used in a variety of collocations and is to be interpreted without the embarrassment of a legal definition and simply according to the best conclusion one can make as to the real meanings of the term as it is employed in, say, a testament, an agreement, or a taxing or other statute as the case may be’. See also Lord

Cave at 49 and Lord Wensbury at 59. See also Grimwade v Mutual Society (1884) 52 LT 409 at 415 and Re United Law Clerks’ Society [1947] Ch 150 at 152. In Inland Revenue Commissioners v Parker [1965] Ch 866 at 884, Ungoed-Thomas J summed up these cases as follows: (1) that prima facie security is limited to security for the payment of a debt as contrasted with shares in the capital of a company; (2) that the context may extend its meaning to include shares; (3) that security by a document establishing personal liability and without charge on property is recognised as a form of security; (4) that it is questionable whether security in that sense would be within its prima facie meaning; but (5) even if it is not within the prima facie meaning of security, yet such security is a less extended meaning of that word than are shares.

The word ‘security’ may have a special meaning under certain taxing statutes: see Broad v Commissioner of Stamp Duties [1980] 2 NSWLR 40 at 45; see also Chapter 41. In Bristol Airport plc v Powdrill [1990] Ch 744 at 760; [1990] 2 All ER 493 at 502, Browne-Wilkinson VC considered a definition by counsel that ‘Security is created where a person (“the creditor”) to whom an obligation is owed by another (“the debtor”) by statute or contract, in addition to the personal promise of the debtor to discharge the obligation, obtains rights exercisable against some property in which the debtor has an interest in order to enforce the discharge of the debtor’s obligation to the creditor’. His Lordship commented that the definition, while not comprehensive, was ‘no wider than the ordinary meaning of the word’. The proffered definition is essentially similar [page 14] to that in Sykes and Walker, The Law of Securities, 5th ed, Law Book Co, Sydney, 1993, p 4, which the authors say may be ‘too mechanistic, but it will serve as a starting point for analysis’. It should be noted that, in appropriate situations, a security may exist as the result of estoppel. As to conventional estoppel see Amalgamated Investment and Property Co Ltd v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd (in liq) [1982] QB 84 and Hiscox v Outhwaite [1992] 1 AC 562 at 574-5 and 584.

In England prior to 1926, if the additional right is a right against property, then the term ‘real security’ is sometimes employed. As is pointed out in Sykes and Walker p 4, this means that the creditor has a right in and enforceable against a res. If the creditor only has a right against, say, a promissory note or under a guarantee, the security is said to be personal. Real security gives the creditor rights over property which has been appropriated to meet the debt or other obligation. Its attraction for the creditor is that, if the debtor should become insolvent, the creditor may exercise his rights over the security in priority to the claims of the general creditors. The property may be real or personal: see Goode, Legal Problems of Credit and Security, pp 5–6. Further, a secured creditor of an insolvent company is not required to set off money owed to the company against the secured debt if the creditor relies on the security and does not prove in the liquidation: Re Norman Holding Co Ltd [1990] 3 All ER 757; [1991] 1 WLR 10 and see Derham, Derham on the Law of Set-Off, 4th ed, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010, [6.173]– [6.178].

Real security 1.5 Real security may be created by contract or even by will and may arise by operation of law. Real securities fall into three classes: first, those by which the creditor obtains proprietary rights over the subject matter of the security, but which do not depend on the creditor obtaining possession of such property (for instance, mortgage securities); second, those by which the creditor does not obtain proprietary rights over the property, and which depend on him obtaining possession of the property (such as pledges and possessory liens); and, third, those which do not depend on the creditor obtaining either proprietary rights over or the possession of the property (such as charges and non-possessory liens). This threefold classification derives from what Willes J said in Halliday v Holgate (1868) LR 3 Ex 299 at 302, and as can be expected, the classes are not watertight ones. The classification really only holds good if one asserts that there can only be a security in the true sense where the mortgagor owns the asset before granting the security. Cases where there is a conditional sale where the buyer

never owns the goods until the seller is paid and property remains in the seller such as under a Romalpa clause: see Aluminium Industrie Vaassen BV v Romalpa Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 676; [1976] 2 All ER 552. Such arrangements operate functionally as securities and may loosely be called securities, but in Australian and English law do not qualify as securities strictly so called, see Goode, Legal Problems of Credit and Security, pp 3–5. ‘Romalpa clauses’ are considered in 1.49. To each of the kinds of real security is incident a right in the creditor to make the property which is subject to the security answerable for the debt or other obligation, a right in the debtor to redeem the property by paying the debt or performing the obligation, and a liability on the part of the creditor upon such payment or performance to restore the property to the owner. [page 15]

Personal security 1.6 Personal security may involve suretyship which consists of the contract of guarantee, whereby the guarantor promises to answer for the obligation of the debtor should the debtor default. It may also, in a looser sense, involve the further ‘securing’ of an obligation in rem by way of an obligation in personam, such as a mortgagor’s obligation on the personal covenant to pay under a mortgage, which may survive the discharge or enforcement of the obligations in rem (see 17.1 and following). The effect of personal security, in the case of suretyship, is to give the creditor a secondary contractual action should the principal debtor default. Although the personal security may be in the form of an IOU (see Batchelor & Co Pty Ltd v Websdale [1963] SR (NSW) 49), the most usual form of personal security is a guarantee. The disadvantages of personal security, from the creditor’s point of view, are that the efficacy of a guarantee depends on the completeness in the form of the document itself and on the original and continued solvency of the guarantor and the possibility of the guarantee being successfully attacked under the principle laid down in Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447. By contrast, real security gives the creditor rights over real or personal

property appropriated to meet the debt or other obligation. For the creditor, the attraction of real security is that, if the debtor should become insolvent, the creditor may exercise rights over the security in priority to the claims of the general creditors. Furthermore, a secured creditor of an insolvent company is not required to set off money owed by it to the company against the secured debt, Re Norman Holding Co Ltd [1990] 3 All ER 757; [1991] 1 WLR 10.

Mortgages 1.7

The mortgage is the most important form of real security.

A mortgage is a form of security almost invariably created by contract, conferring an interest in property defeasible — that is, annullable — upon performing the condition of paying a given sum of money, with or without interest, or performing some other condition. The classic definition of a mortgage was given by Lindley MR in Santley v Wilde [1899] 2 Ch 474, as follows: ‘A mortgage is a conveyance of land or an assignment of chattels as a security for the payment of a debt or the discharge of some other obligation for which it is given.’ This classic definition has been applied on many subsequent occasions: see, for example, Bevham Investments Pty Ltd v Belgot Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 494 at 499; UTC Ltd v NZI Securities Australia Ltd (1991) 4 WAR 349 at 351; Alcoota Aboriginal Corp v Gray (2002) 170 FLR 29 at 39. In Handevel Pty Ltd v Comptroller of Stamps (Vic) (1985) 157 CLR 177 at 192, the High Court noted that the conveyance may be either in equity or at law and while the mortgage usually secures a money debt, it does not always do so. (The old New South Wales case, Tooth & Co v Parkes (1900) 21 LR (NSW) (Eq) 173 was to the contrary.) In Waldron v Bird [1974] VR 497 at 501, Gillard J said: Although the actual decision of Santley v Wilde was subsequently overruled in the House of Lords (see Noakes & Co Ltd v Rice [1902] AC 24), that description by Lord Lindley of what constitutes a mortgage was expressly affirmed in Noakes’ case at 28 and has hardly ever been dissented from. The features necessary to constitute a mortgage are threefold: first, there must be a promise by the alleged mortgagor to repay money to the alleged mortgagee or to perform some other obligation; secondly, as security for repayment of such moneys or performance of such obligation, the alleged mortgagor must transfer or assign his estate and interest in property, real

or personal,

[page 16] to the mortgagee absolutely; thirdly, to distinguish between an absolute transfer of title in a mortgage, the transfer or assignment must, in order to constitute a mortgage, be subject to a proviso that if and when the alleged mortgagor makes repayment or performs the obligation imposed upon him, the alleged mortgagee will retransfer or reassign the property to the alleged mortgagor.

The conclusion reached in Waldron v Bird was that a mortgagee was at least the assignee or transferee of any property, real or personal, given by way of security on an assurance whereby there is provision for redemption of such property on repayment of monies lent. The emphasis on a transfer or assignment to the mortgagee is central to the English conception of mortgage; see, for example, Goode, Legal Problems of Credit and Security, p 35. Note, however, that it is not necessary that the full ownership of the property be assigned to the mortgagee. The mortgagee only receives the title that the mortgagor owns. The mortgagor totally divests himself of what property rights he had in the land or thing mortgaged so that after the transaction he has nothing left but rights of a contractual nature and rights in equity. Thus there may be a mortgage of an easement or a life interest or a mortgage: see Sykes and Walker, p 15. However, even on the strictest view, there may be a mortgage without an actual assignment, as where there is a sale and mortgage back. As the Queensland Court of Appeal said in Postle v Sengstock [1994] 2 Qd R 290 at 296, there is no reason why such an assignment is necessary where the mortgagee already holds the legal title. The court said that the essential feature of a mortgage was not the assignment of title to the mortgagee but the fact that the title was vested in the mortgagee by way of security. The position was analogous to the delivery of goods by way of pledge when they were already in the creditor’s hands for other purposes. Again, Meares J in Wilcox Mofflin Ltd v Commissioner of Stamp Duties [1978] 1 NSWLR 341 at 349, after analysing a series of cases including United Realization Co Pty Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue [1899] 1 QB 361 at 365 and also definitions in leading texts, found that he could not

agree with Gillard J’s proposition that Lord Lindley’s definition had never been dissented from. It is still, however, the best definition available. A mortgage security depends upon grant by the debtor or someone on the debtor’s behalf, not in reservation: Re Bond Worth Ltd [1980] Ch 228 at 2526; [1979] 3 All ER 919 at 942-5 and see generally, Goode, Legal Problems of Credit and Security, pp 5–10. A mortgage may be either legal or equitable: Realty or personalty may be mortgaged. Traditionally, mortgages of chattels was effected as a general rule by bills of sale. However, they are now covered by the PPSA considered in Chapter 5. ‘A mortgage, whether legal or equitable, is security for repayment of a debt. The security may be constituted by a conveyance, assignment or demise or by a charge on any interest in real or personal property’: Downsview Nominees Ltd v First City Corp Ltd [1993] AC 295 at 311. See also Doyle v Doyle [1992] 3 NZLR 170 at 172. It is an essential feature of a mortgage that the mortgagor is entitled to get back the subject matter of the mortgage on repayment, Beconwood Securities Pty Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2008) 246 ALR 361: 66 ACSR 116. For further consideration as to the definition of mortgage see Quarrell v Beckford (1816) 1 Madd 269 at 278; 56 ER 100 at 103; Kennard v Futvoye (1860) 2 Giff 81; 66 ER 35; Re Allenborough and Inland Revenue Commissioners (1855) 11 Ex 461; 156 ER 912; Cavendish v Cavendish (1885) 30 Ch D 227 at 229; Re Beirnstein [1925] Ch 12 at 18; Metropolitan Gas Co v McIlwraith McEachern Ltd [1932] VLR 88; Barcelo v Electronic Zinc Co of Australasia Ltd (1932) 48 CLR 391; City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd v Smith (1932) 48 CLR 532; Allsop v Marshall (1946) 46 SR (NSW) 274 at 277; Cambridge [page 17] Credit Corp Ltd v Lombard Australia Ltd (1977) 136 CLR 608 at 615. For definitions in connection with taxing laws see 41.8. It should be noted that the types of mortgage instruments that may be brought into existence are almost infinitely various, depending on the type of transaction the parties have put in place. For a case where the mortgage

excluded personal liability, see Baypoint Pty Ltd v Baker (1994) 6 BPR 13 at 687.

Definitional problems 1.8 A precise definition of the traditional mortgage of real estate is extremely difficult to formulate. Indeed, in Samuel v Jarrah Timber and Wood Paving Corporation [1904] AC 323 at 326, Lord Macnaghten said that no-one by the light of nature ever understood it. The cases reviewed in the previous paragraph demonstrate that the term ‘mortgage’ is not always employed in its strict sense, whatever that may be, even outside the extended definitions in revenue statutes. Sykes and Walker (at p 14) say that the problem commences with the adoption in English law of the threefold Roman Law classification of fiducia (mortgages in the strict sense), pignus (possessory security) and hypotheca (charges and similar). As commercial life developed, these classifications were inadequate, yet the judgments continued to force the new types of security into the established categories. Thus, the categories represent the ideal rather than any practical classification. In London County & Westminster Bank Ltd v Tompkins [1918] 1 KB 515 at 528-9, Scrutton LJ noted the gap between textbook classifications and the way in which equity and commercial lawyers habitually used the words ‘mortgage’ and ‘charge’ and this is still far from unusual. This is exacerbated in Australia because of the nature of the Torrens system mortgage which is not a mortgage in the strict sense at all. Gough, in Company Charges, 2nd ed, Butterworths, London, 1996, particularly chapter 13, discusses numerous cases on the definition of charge or floating charge, from which discussion can clearly be seen that there is a range of views by eminent judges on the proper definition of these terms. It is therefore not unexpected to find many robust and loose definitions of mortgage, charge etc in the cases. Moreover, words such as ‘charge’ are often used in statutes in a loose sense: see 1.9.

Charge 1.9

A charge is the appropriation of real or personal property for the

discharge of a debt or other obligation, without giving the creditor either a general or special property in, or possession of, the subject of the security. Thus, an order upon a third party to apply money in that person’s hands to the discharge of a debt, or a charge on realty for the payment of a specified amount, creates a charge. The creditor has a right of realisation by judicial process in the case of non-payment of the debt. The basic definitional elements of the term ‘charge’ are examined in 2.2. The word ‘charge’ is often used in a broad or loose sense in statutes: Cinema Plus Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2000) 49 NSWLR 513 at 521-2; 35 ACSR 1 at 6-7; 157 FLR 204 at 210-12. Thus in Payne v Esdaile (1888) 13 App Cas 613 at 622-4, Lord Herschell looked at the word ‘in a broad sense’. In Fell v Official Trustee of Charity Lands [1898] 2 Ch 44 at 57, Rigby LJ said that the word ‘charge’ was a very general one; see also Landers v Schmidt [1983] 1 Qd R 188. Indeed, both ‘mortgage’ and ‘charge’ are often loosely used as a generic term for all species of security. In the company context especially, ‘mortgage’ and ‘charge’ are often used as if there were no difference between the terms: see Re Bond Worth Ltd [page 18] [1980] Ch 228 at 250; [1979] 3 All ER 919 at 940; Re Wallis & Simmonds (Builders) Ltd [1974] 1 All ER 561; [1974] 1 WLR 391. In the construction of wills, ‘mortgage’ includes ‘charge’ and vice versa: see Re Beirnstein; Barnett v Beirnstein [1925] Ch 12. For a case where the distinction between ‘mortgage’ and ‘charge’ was expressly made by the plaintiff see Thames Guaranty Ltd v Campbell [1985] QB 210 at 217. There is, as is explained more fully at 1.33 and 1.39, a difference between an equitable mortgage and an equitable charge because of the methods of enforcement: see also United Travel Agencies Pty Ltd v Cain (1990) 20 NSWLR 566. Even at law, there is a fundamental difference in the nature of a mortgage and a charge even though they may popularly be considered very similar: see Swiss Bank Corp v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1982] AC 584. ‘A charge involves some deduction from the right of ownership in the

property rather than a mere interference with the right to possession which is normally an incident of ownership. It is not a word which is apt to describe a purely possessory lien as opposed to a lien of a non-possessory nature such as an equitable lien’: Waitomo Wools (NZ) Ltd v Nelsons (NZ) Ltd [1974] 1 NZLR 484 at 490 per Richmond J. See also Re Price (1931) 26 Tas LR 158 at 160; Painten and Nottingham Ltd v Miller Gale & Winter [1971] NZLR 164 at 179; Young v Matthew Hall Mechanical & Electrical Engineers Pty Ltd (1988) 13 ACLR 399 at 403. Strictly speaking, not all charges are mortgages. As a mortgage involves a grant or transfer or assignment of property, a charge which merely reserves rights in property to which the chargee may resort in the event of default cannot qualify as a mortgage. “Charge” is specifically defined in s 3(1) of the NSW Torrens Act, see 4.4. A charge in relation to a future advance cannot operate until the advance is made: West v Williams [1899] 1 Ch 132 at 146; Robertson v Grigg (1932) 47 CLR 257 at 271. However a charge is made when the underlying contract creating the charge is made. Thus there is not a fresh charge each time an advance is made under that contract: Sibbles v Highfern Pty Ltd (1987) 164 CLR 214 especially at 223. In Josef v Mulder (1903) 72 LJPC 50, a couple held property on condition that they never sell or part with it. The couple granted a charge over the property. This was held not to be a breach, as a charge was not a mortgage and did not involve a parting with property. Charges are considered in detail in Chapters 2 and 8.

Lien 1.10 A common law lien is a right conferred by law upon a person to retain possession of, or to have a charge upon, the real or personal property of another, until certain demands are satisfied. Although the right is conferred by law and not by contract (see Re Bond Worth Ltd [1980] Ch 228 at 250; [1979] 3 All ER 919 at 940), the word ‘lien’ is sometimes used in practice to describe a right which arises by way of express contractual agreement. The better analysis is that contract supersedes a common law lien so that the rights of a person claiming under the contract are solely to be found in the contract: see, for example, Fisher v Smith (1878) 4 App Cas 1.

Unfortunately the word ‘lien’ is used in different senses. A common law lien is completely different from an equitable lien. The former is based on possession and usually confers a mere right to detain. The latter is not based on possession and entitles the holder to judicial sale. See McGhee, Snell’s Equity, 31st ed, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2005, 34.07, p 780. Equitable liens are discussed in 2.22ff; common law liens in 2.33 ff. [page 19]

Pledge 1.11 The usual definition of pledge or pawn is that it is a security created by contract and effected by a bailment of a chattel to the creditor, to be kept by the creditor until the debt is discharged. It is incomplete without actual or constructive delivery of the goods to the pledgee: Martin v Reid (1862) 11 CB (NS) 730 at 734; 142 ER 982 at 984; Ayres v South Australian Banking Co (1871) LR 3 PC 548 at 554. The general property in the goods remains in the pledgor: see Coggs v Barnard (1703) 2 Ld Raym 909 at 913; 92 ER 107 at 109; Donald v Suckling (1866) LR 1 QB 585 at 594; and Halsbury’s Laws of England, 5th ed, vol 4, [190, 206]. AWB Simpson’s A History of the Common Law, 2nd ed, Clarendon Press, Oxford, p 141 notes that the pledge was the earliest form of security over land known to English law. The High Court considered the definition of pledge in Palgo Holdings Pty Ltd v Gowans (2005) 221 CLR 249; 215 ALR 253; 79 ALJR 1121. The judges made it clear at [19] that time has not dulled the traditional definitions and distinctions in this area of the law. McHugh, Gummow, Hayne & Heydon, JJ said at CLR 257, 258; ALR 257–8; ALJR 1125 [16]–[17]. [16] Both ‘pawn’ and ‘pledge’ are words as having a long-established legal meaning. That is hardly surprising when the ancient origins of such transactions are recalled. For centuries, pawn or pledge (the terms are used interchangeably) has been recognised as one class of bailment of goods.… [17] Commentators and the courts have long recognised that pawn or pledge is a ‘bailment of personal property as a security for some debt or engagement. They have identified such a transaction as distinct and different from mortgage where ‘the whole legal title passes conditionally to the mortgagee’. This distinction was sometimes expressed in terms of the

difference between ‘special property’ of the pledge and the ‘general property’ which remained in the pledgor. The ‘special property’ of the pledge was described as the right to detain the goods for the pledgee’s security and ‘is in truth no property at all.’ That ‘special property’ depends upon delivery of possession whereas in the case of a mortgage of personal property the right of property passes by the conveyance and possession is not essential; to create or support the title.

The quoted definition of pledge is taken from Story on Bailments at 286. This definition was also preferred by Ormiston J in Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Curlett, Cannon and Galbell Pty Ltd [1992] 2 VR 647 at 653-4. See also Isaack v Clark (1615) 2 Bulst 306; 80 ER 1143, where a bag of money was deposited as security for redelivery of three butts of sack. See also (1993) 6 JBIL 252 (Paleson). The High Court’s definition of ‘special property’ derives from Ryall v Rolle (1749) 1 Atk 165 at 167; 26 ER 107 at 108-9; the reference to ‘no property at all’ is a quote from Lord Mersey in The Odessa [1916] 1 AC 145 at 158. The reference to the essentiality of delivery derives from Story at 287. Delivery may be actual — namely, physical handing over of the chattel — or constructive, such as the case where the key to the room in which the goods are stored is handed over: see Hilton v Tucker (1888) 39 Ch D 669; Wrightson v McArthur and Hutchisons (1919) Ltd [1921] 2 KB 807. However, care must be taken to remember that delivery of possession does not necessarily signify the existence of a pledge, it may equally be referable to an intention to create an equitable mortgage or charge, see Goode, Commercial Law, Lexis Nexis, London, 2004, pp 617–8, quoted with approval by the High Court in Palgo at [19], a passage not included in the 4th edition. A contract of pledge may convert a bailment by way of pledge: Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Curlett, Cannon and Galbell Pty Ltd, above, at 656; see also Blundell-Leigh v Attenborough [1921] 1 KB 382 at 389 and Postle v Sengstock [1994] 2 Qd R 290 at 297. A pledge is not within the definition of ‘charge’ in the Corporations Act: Re Vital Learning Aids Pty Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 442; Seka Pty Ltd v Fabric Dyeworks (Aust) Pty [page 20]

Ltd (1991) 4 ACSR 455; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Butterell (1994) 14 ACSR 343; Osborne Computer Corp Pty Ltd v Airroad Distribution Pty Ltd (1995) 17 ACSR 614 at 622. A pledge of a personal chattel need not be registered under the Corporations Act: see s 262(2)(b). Pledge differs from mortgage and lien in that the person taking the pledge acquires a special property in the thing pledged and not just the right to detain it: see Palgo Holdings Pty Ltd v Gowans quoted above and also Donald v Suckling (1866) LR 1 QB 585; Burdick v Sewell (1883) 10 QBD 363 at 367, affirmed (1884) 10 App Cas 74 and Gunnedah MC v New Zealand Land and Mercantile Agency Co Ltd [1963] NSWR 1229 (FC.A socalled general lien over goods in the custody of a customs agent may actually be pledged: see Re Vital Learning Aids Pty Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 442. In Palgo Holdings Pty Ltd v Gowans (2005) 215 ALR 253; 79 ALJR 1121, McHugh, Gummow, Hayne & Heydon, JJ said at ALR 257-8, ALJR 1125, [18]: [18] It has also long been recognised that pawn and pledge must also be distinguished from lien. “One who has a lien has only a right of detaining the res until the money owing is paid: a lien disappears if possession is lost, and there is no right of sale.” A lien is merely a personal right and cannot be taken in execution: a pledge creates an interest in the pledge that can be seized in execution.

The quote is from Paton on Bailment p 352. The authority for the last subclause is Re Rollason (1887) 34 Ch D 495. A person taking a pledge has a power to sell the chattel to satisfy the debt if not redeemed by the due date or, if no date is set, after demand: Martin v Reid (1862) 11 CB (NS) 730; 142 ER 982; Pigot v Cubley (1864) 15 CB (NS) 701; 143 ER 960; Re Morritt; Ex parte Official Receiver (1886) 18 QBD 222 at 235; France v Clark (1883) 22 Ch D 830; Burdick v Sewell (1883) 10 QBD 363 at 367; and see Halsbury’s Laws of England, 5th ed, vol 4, [214]. A negative pledge considered in 2.5 is basically a promise by a debtor that it will not grant any security over nominated property without the promisee’s consent.

C. Mortgages Generally Legal mortgage 1.12 Under the general law, a legal mortgage is a conveyance or assignment of the whole or part of the estate or interest of the debtor in real or personal property of which the debtor is the legal owner or has some legal estate or interest which the debtor has the power to transfer: see the cases cited in 1.7. Generally speaking, the absolute assurance of the property is subject to a proviso that upon payment of the debt at a certain time the property must be reconveyed. The essence of the legal mortgage of land is the vesting of a legal estate in the mortgagee, together with an immediate right of possession, although this right of possession may, in the large majority of cases, not be exercised. On payment of the debt at the time fixed, the mortgagor may re-enter and is entitled to a reconveyance. This classic form of mortgage of land is now the exception rather than the rule, especially in view of the large percentage of the land in Australia and New Zealand which is held under the Torrens system.

Mortgages before the 1925 Reforms 1.13 The history of mortgages has been briefly outlined in 1.3. Fuller dissertations can be found in Holdsworth, A History of English Law, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1922–1972 (‘HEL’); Pollock and Maitland, The History of English Law, 2nd ed, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1898, (‘P & M’), particularly vol 2, pp 117–24; Turner, The Equity of Redemption, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1931; [page 21] Plucknett, A Concise History of the Common Law, 5th ed, Butterworths, London, 1956, pp 603–8; and see also the article by Barton (1967) 83 LQR 229. Pledges of land are found in Anglo-Saxon times and in the Domesday Book. In Glanvill (c 1187) the rules relating to gage (or pledge) are dealt with as for movables and then applied by reference to immovables (Book X, cc 6–

11; see HEL, vol ii, pp 188 ff). Possession would usually be given to the mortgagee (for the influence of the usury laws on mortgages, see HEL, vol viii, pp 100 ff), but he had only a special sort of seisin (seisina ut de vadio) which the law did not protect (HEL, vol iii, pp 128 ff; P & M, vol 2, p 120). Such a pledge was called a mortgage (mortuum vadium) when the fruits or rent received did not tend to reduce the debt; it was called a vivum vadium when they were so applied (Glanvill, Book X, c 6). The property became the mortgagee’s on default of repayment on the appointed day, if it was so agreed, or if the mortgagor failed to redeem within a reasonable time after the court had ordered him to do so (Glanvill, Book X, cc 6–8). This form of mortgage of land was succeeded by the one, ever since in use, by which the mortgagee took an ordinary estate in the land entitling him to the usual remedies for recovering possession. In Bracton (c 1257) the mortgagee’s estate appears as a term of years capable of being enlarged automatically into the fee simple on default of payment at the end of the term (F 20. Also see P & M, vol 2, p 121; HEL, vol iii, p 129). Later, when the treatment of estates had become more exact, this elasticity was not permitted. Livery of seisin was essential for the creation of a fee simple, and since there was no livery on the grant of the term a freehold estate would not arise afterwards (Littleton (c 1480), Tenures, s 349; Co Litt, p 216 ff). Accordingly it was necessary for the mortgagee to take at once the estate which was to become absolute on nonpayment at the time named (Litt, s 333). Mortgages might still be made by a lease at a nominal rent (but the mortgagee having no right to the fee) and upon the terms that the mortgagee was to receive the rents and profits of the land in satisfaction of the debt. Alternatively, in the case of freeholds, a mortgage might be made by a conveyance of the land in fee simple, subject to the condition either that the mortgagor might re-enter or that the conveyance should be void if the debt was paid by the appointed day (HEL, vol iii, pp 129, 130. There were also statutory forms of real security (for example under Statutes Merchant and Staple) which were commonly used until the 17th century; see HEL, vol iii, p 132). Under this system the mortgagee did not necessarily go into possession and a new explanation of mortuum vadium and vivum vadium became necessary: see Littleton, s 332. This was that the land was dead to the debtor if he did not pay at the appointed day, and the pledge was dead if he did pay. But Coke, in his comment on this, remarks that the mortgage or mortuum vadium is so called to distinguish it from the vivum vadium, which he defines in Glanvill’s sense

(Co Litt, p 205a), though he carries out Littleton’s idea by saying that ‘if the creditor’s estate is granted only till he has received his debt out of the issue and profits, neither money nor land dieth, or is lost’; see also per Lord Eldon in Fenwick v Reed (1816) 1 Mer 114 at 124; 35 ER 618 at 622. The Usury Act 1545 permitted loans at interest, so that there was no longer any need for rents and profits to be taken in lieu of interest. In or before the 16th century the form of the mortgage by conveyance had changed. The conditions previously mentioned were replaced by the more convenient covenant for re-conveyance by the mortgagee on repayment by the appointed time (HEL, vol v, pp 330, 331). The Court of Chancery would grant specific performance of this covenant. Moreover this change simplified proof of title which then depended on execution of the reconveyance: see Durham Bros v Robertson [1898] 1 QB 765 at 772 (CA). Although expressed as a covenant for reconveyance the proviso had the effect of a condition subsequent: see Hazeltine’s preface to Turner, Equity of Redemption, pp xi– xiv. This form of mortgage by conveyance became the usual form of legal mortgage of land, other than land under the Torrens system, until the conveyancing reforms of the 20th [page 22] century, and it still remains the usual form of legal mortgage in other cases. The alternative form of mortgage by lease continued to be generally used until the early 19th century. This form had advantages in that it could be used for a mortgage of both freehold and leasehold land, and, since it created only a chattel interest, on the mortgagee’s death this passed to his executors and not to his heir (Co Litt, p 204b). It had the disadvantage, however, that a reversion was left in the mortgagor, even if he defaulted. Moreover, there was doubt as to whether the mortgagee could call for the title deeds. Therefore, apart from those circumstances where it was particularly useful (as, for example, for raising portions in family settlements) because the term created did not disturb the limitations of the settlement, this form fell into disuse. It is convenient to mention here two other forms of mortgage now obsolete. Formerly a security was sometimes made in the form of a trust for sale, in case of non-payment of the debt at a certain time. This type of

mortgage is referred to in the English Act of 1925 (defined in 1.2): ss 85(3), 86(3). This was in effect a mortgage and redeemable as such; the remedy of the mortgagee being under the trust for sale, instead of by foreclosure, though if the mortgagor commenced an action for redemption and failed to redeem he was foreclosed. See also Goode, Hire-Purchase Law and Practice, 2nd ed, Butterworths, London, 1970, p 552; (1984) 100 LQR 86, 87–90 (Anderson). A ‘Welsh mortgage’ was an assurance by which property was conveyed to the creditor without any condition for payment (as distinguished from a personal covenant), but upon the terms that the creditor was to receive the rents and profits in satisfaction of principal and interest or in lieu of interest. Since the assurance was without condition that could be no forfeiture; consequently that was no equity of redemption, which could be the subject of foreclosure. But there was a continuing right of redemption and the mortgagor could redeem at any time. See further Wylie, A Casebook on Irish Land Law, Professional Books, Abingdon, 1984, pp 571–2.

Equity of redemption 1.14 At common law, upon non-repayment by the appointed time, the estate of the mortgagee became absolute and irredeemable unless the mortgage provided otherwise. See HEL, vol ii, pp 336, 579. Furthermore, the mortgagor was still liable for the debt: Kreglinger v New Patagonia Meat & Cold Storage Co Ltd [1914] AC 25 at 35 (HL). In courts of equity, on the other hand, the mortgagee’s estate was subject to a right called the equity of redemption, which arose from the court’s consideration that the real object of the transaction was the creation of a security for the debt (Sparrow v Hardcastle (1754) 3 Atk 798 at 805; 26 ER 1256 at 1260 per Lord Hardwicke; Seton v Slade (1802) 7 Ves 265; 32 ER 108 per Lord Eldon); and the court was, no doubt, anxious to increase its jurisdiction. Another motivation was a change in the usury laws: see HEL, vol viii, pp 100 ff. Thus equity allowed the mortgagor to redeem (or recover the property) even though there had been a failure to repay by the appointed time. At first, the court would only intervene in cases of special hardship, but by the 17th century relief was given as a matter of course: see Turner, Equity of Redemption, pp 21 ff; HEL, vol v, pp 330–2; Emanuel College v Evans (1625) 1 Chan Rep 18; 21 ER 494.

In England the expression ‘equity of redemption’ traditionally denoted the sum total of the mortgagor’s rights including those at law and arose on the creation of the mortgage. This was to be distinguished from the equitable right to redeem which only arose in equity after the contractual right to redeem had expired: Kreglinger v New Patagonia Meat & Cold Storage Co Ltd [1914] AC 25 at 48 (HL), and see Brown v Cole (1845) 14 Sim 427; 60 ER 424. However, as Cousins points out in The Law of Mortgages, 2nd ed, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2001, 17.01 the equitable right to redeem must again be distinguished from the equitable interest which arises in the mortgagor simultaneously with the execution of the mortgage since, in equity, the mortgage conveyance does [page 23] not have the effect of transferring to the mortgagee the whole beneficial interest in the security, but separates the legal and the equitable ownership. Turner notes the case of Bodenham v Halle (1456) Select Cases in Chancery 1346–1471 (vol 10 Selden Society Yearbooks). Bodenham borrowed £80 from Halle in 1455 and enfeoffed Halle of property at ShiptonBellinger, New Andover on condition that if £100 was repaid together with interest at 70 per cent in 1461 there would be a reconveyance. In 1456 the mortgagee committed Bodenham to debtors’ prison on a collateral bond. The decree was that, Bodenham having paid into court the £80, he should be released from prison, discharged from the collateral bond and re-enfeoffed of the mortgaged land. Turner says relief was probably given on the grounds of conscience, the Chancellor at the time being particularly concerned with unjust imprisonments. Although in the 15th century the Chancellor would only relieve before the due date for payment, by Elizabeth I’s time relief might be given even some short time afterwards, such as the case where the mortgagor was robbed on the way to repay the debt. See Cary 1; 21 ER 1. The Chancellor by the mid-17th century had come to grant relief after the due date even in the absence of special circumstances. See Turner, pp 25–9. The Chancellor, however, did not have everything his own way; an ordinance was made in 1654, during the period of the Commonwealth, to restrict the right of redemption. This was repeatedly violated by the

Commissioners in Chancery and was not adopted by the Restoration Parliament. At the same time as relief became a matter of course the mortgagee in possession became accountable to the mortgagor for rent: Holman v Vaux (1615) Toth 133; 21 ER 146. The mortgagee was compensated for the special favour shown the mortgagor by the right of foreclosure which is first mentioned in How v Vigures (1628) 1 Chan Rep 32; 21 ER 499. One of the earliest authorities to analyse the mortgagor’s position both at law and in equity is Thornborough v Baker (1675) 3 Swan 628 at 630; 36 ER 1000 at 1001 where Lord Nottingham states a series of propositions. These equitable rights became recognised in common law courts by the Judicature Act 1873 (UK), which now has its local equivalent.

The term ‘equity of redemption’ today 1.15 The equity of redemption must be distinguished from the equitable right to redeem which it includes. However, in current practice the term ‘equity of redemption’ is often used indiscriminately to refer to one or both rights. Before the Torrens system and 20th century reforms to the law of property, the usual method of freehold mortgage vested the legal fee simple in the mortgagee. The phrase ‘equity of redemption’ was used to denote the equitable interests of the mortgagor: see, for example, Casborne v Scarfe (1737) 1 Atk 603; 26 ER 377. In equity, the mortgagor was considered as the owner of the land subject to the mortgage: Re Wells; Swinburne-Hanham v Howard [1933] Ch 29 at 52. This is still the case with the general law mortgage of land. With a mortgage under the general law, the mortgagor may have a contractual right to redeem; the mortgagor’s equitable right to redeem only arises when the contractual right to redeem has passed, Brown v Cole (1845) 14 Sim 427: 60 ER 424, see also Twentieth Century Banking Corporation Ltd v Wilkinson [1977] Ch 99: [1976] 3 All ER 361. Under the Torrens system, the legal estate in fee simple remains in the mortgagor, but the phrase ‘equity of redemption’ is used to denote the mortgagor’s interest in the land even though it is by statute a legal right attached to the mortgagor’s legal estate: see Abigail v Lapin [1934] AC 491 at 501; 51 CLR 58 at 65; and Figgins Holdings Pty Ltd v SEAA Enterprises Pty Ltd (1999) 196 CLR 245 at 261, and see 4.7.

Thus, whatever purists might think, these days the phrase ‘equity of redemption’ frequently comprehends both the legal right to redeem the mortgage as a matter of contractual right which existed up until the date of redemption at common law, and [page 24] also the equitable right to redeem the mortgage after such date had passed up to the making of an order absolute for foreclosure. The old distinction is, however, sometimes of importance, such as in the situation where the mortgagor wishes to redeem before the contractual date: see Stocks & Enterprises Pty Ltd v McBurney (1977) 1 BPR 9521 at 9526 and Hyde Management Services Pty Ltd v FAI Insurances Pty Ltd (1979) 144 CLR 541. An equity of redemption may be disposed of inter vivos or by will and passes on intestacy: see 32.2. Any attempted restriction on the equity of redemption beyond certain narrow limits is void: see 32.6ff. The equity of redemption may be determined by release (see 32.9), by lapse of time (see 32.85), by sale (see 20.1) and by foreclosure (see 21.1).

Obligations under mortgages. 1.16 Under modern conditions, a mortgage transaction generates a spectrum of rights and duties. The mortgagee still occupies the strongest position, but the mortgagee and its privies such as receivers are not free from obligations. Such obligations usually arise in equity and by statute, but may also spring from express or implied terms in the mortgage document. Thus a mortgagee owes a duty to the mortgagor to complete his security: see Yorkshire Bank plc v Hall [1999] 1 WLR 1713 at 1728; [1999] 1 All ER 879 at 893 and 16.2. The rights of a mortgagor generally are discussed in Chapter 12. The range of duties that attach to a mortgagee or receiver after going into possession or when exercising power of sale are considered in Chapters 19 and 20 (see 20.1).

D. Mortgages of Land in Australia

Australian mortgages 1.17 In addition to the types of mortgage inherited from England, Australian law has evolved additional forms of mortgage security. Some of these, such as the mortgage of Crown lands, so closely follow the traditional form of mortgage of land that only a small amount of comment is needed in the appropriate place in this work: see 9.5ff. Only the Torrens system mortgage needs special mention. Up until recently, there was special legislation in existence governing mortgages of crops, livestock and wool etc. These have now been subsumed into the Personal Property Securities legislation considered in Chapter 5.

Mortgages of Torrens system land 1.18 Under the Torrens system, the mortgage takes the form of a statutory instrument which, when registered, confers on the mortgagee an interest in the land at law which carries with it most of the rights and obligations that a mortgagee would have with an old system mortgage. The mortgagor, however, also has a legal interest in the land, in contradistinction to the position under the general law, where his interest only would be equitable. Accordingly, a second mortgage is, if registered, a legal interest and is a form of legal mortgage, not merely an equitable mortgage. The nearest one can get to a short description of a Torrens system mortgage is that it is an hypothecation. In English Scottish & Australian Bank Ltd v Phillips (1937) 57 CLR 302 at 321, the majority of the High Court justices said, ‘The statutory charge described as a mortgage is a distinct interest. It involves no ownership of the land the subject of the security. Like a lease, it is a separate interest in land which may be dealt with apart altogether from the fee simple or other estate or interest mortgaged. But, like a lease, it involves, or usually includes, personal obligations’. See also Alliance Acceptance Co Ltd v Ellison (1986) 5 NSWLR 102, affirmed by the Court of Appeal (1987) 9 NSWLR 13. The topic was recently discussed by the High Court in Figgins Holdings Pty Ltd v SEAA Enterprises Pty Ltd (1999) 196 CLR 245 especially at 261. [page 25]

Despite the considerable change in form, the substantive rights and obligations of mortgagees and mortgagors under Torrens system mortgages are very similar to those under old system mortgages. Even terms such as ‘equity of redemption’ and ‘foreclosure’ are used, although, on analysis, it is clear that they are used with a different legal meaning. A full conspectus of the law of Torrens system mortgages is contained in Chapter 4.

E. Other Mortgages — Fixtures — Goodwill & Incidental Rights Fixtures 1.19 A mortgage can be taken over almost any property. However, many mortgages are covered by the PPSA considered in Chapter 5. The PPSA exempts mortgages over fixtures s 5(1)(j). PPSA defines ‘fixtures’ as ‘goods, other than crops, that are affixed to land’. With regard to fixtures, New South Wales and Victoria form one group and the remaining states another. In the former group the test is whether the fixtures are ‘capable of complete transfer by delivery (either at the time of the making or giving of a bill of sale of the personal chattels specified in the bill or at any time thereafter)’. In the latter group fixtures are chattels ‘when separately assigned’. In New South Wales a mortgagee is given a specific statutory power, where the mortgage is made by deed, to sever and sell fixtures apart from the balance of the mortgaged property (Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) s 109(1) (e)), but a mortgage of land which confers such a power, either expressly or by the implication of the statutory power, upon the mortgagee, shall not be and shall be deemed never to have been merely because of such power a bill of sale or subject to avoidance or invalidity under the Bills of Sale Act 1898 by reason of not having been registered under the provisions of that Act: Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) s 109A. It seems, however, that if fixtures were to be mortgaged by deed, apart from the tenement or hereditament to which they were attached, then the power to sever contained in s 109 of the Conveyancing Act would apply to the deed, but the protection afforded by s

109A would not, and consequently the deed would be a bill of sale. In Victoria there does not appear to be any statutory counterpart of the New South Wales Conveyancing Act s 109A, or of the implied power to sever and sell fixtures; severance, however, would appear to be a condition precedent to making fixtures ‘capable of complete transfer by delivery’: Re Wilde; Ex parte Daglish (1873) 8 Ch App 1072; Johns v Ware [1899] 1 Ch 359. It would follow therefore that in Victoria a power to sever and sell fixtures included in a mortgage of real estate, whether freehold or leasehold, would require registration as a bill of sale under the Instruments Act. In Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania fixtures (other than trade machinery) will be ‘chattels’ for the purposes of the Acts only when separately assigned. If therefore they are assigned together with a freehold or leasehold estate in land, they will not be ‘chattels’ for the purposes of the Acts, whether the assignment includes a power to sever or not; indeed, when so assigned they are specifically excluded from the definitions.

Fixtures passing by mortgage of land 1.20 A mortgage of land — whether legal or equitable (see Re Lusty; Ex parte Lusty v Official Receiver (1889) 60 LT 160), and whether of freeholds or leaseholds (see Meux v Jacobs (1875) LR 7 HL 481; Southport and West Lancashire Banking Co v Thompson (1887) 37 Ch D 64 (CA)) comprises, without express mention, and subject to any [page 26] contrary intention, all fixtures which at the date of the mortgage are, or at any time afterwards during its continuance may be, annexed to the land (Mather v Fraser (1856) 2 K & J 536; 69 ER 895; Walmsley v Milne (1859) 7 CB NS 115; 141 ER 759; Longbottom v Berry (1869) LR 5 QB 123; Holland v Hodgson (1872) LR 7 CP 328; Smith v Maclure (1884) 32 WR 459; Reynolds v Ashby & Son [1904] AC 466 (HL); Ellis v Glover and Hobson Ltd [1908] 1 KB 388 (CA); Vaudeville Electric Cinema v Muriset [1923] 2 Ch 74; Hulme v Brigham [1943] 1 KB 152; [1943] 1 All ER 204; as to the power of sale in

relation to fixtures, see 1.21), whether or not they are removable as between landlord and tenant. Fixtures passing by a mortgage of land will not pass to the trustee in bankruptcy of the mortgagor: Clark v Crownshaw (1832) 3 B & Ad 804; 110 ER 295. In relation to fixtures generally, see Bradbrook, MacCallum and Moore, Australian Real Property Law, 3rd ed, Law Book Co, Sydney, 2002, pp 585– 96; Hinde, McMorland and Sim, Introduction to Land Law, 2nd ed, Butterworths, Wellington, 1986, pp 571–700; and see Halsbury’s Laws of England, vol 27, Landlord and Tenant, paras 142ff; Megarry and Wade, The Law of Real Property, 6th ed, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2000, pp 928ff; (1985) 135 NLJ 539, 588 (Haley); and Griggs, ‘The doctrine of fixtures: questionable origin, debatable history and a future that is past!’ (2001) 9 APLJ 51; and see Alston, ‘Chattels Attached to Chattels’ (1996) 4 APLJ 120. For recent examples of what are fixtures, see Bank of Melbourne Ltd v CBFC Leasing Pty Ltd [1991] ACL Rep 295 Qld 7 (air conditioner); NorthWest Trust Co v Rezyn Developments Inc (1991) 81 DLR (4th) 751 (ten-pin bowling alley); University of Melbourne v Avram Hotels Pty Ltd (1991) VConvR 54-395 (carpets). Nevertheless, it was emphasised in N H Dunn Pty Ltd v L M Ericsson (1979) 2 BPR 9241 (CA) that no single principle or test is adequate to determine whether an item of personal property is a fixture or a chattel: and see National Australia Bank Ltd v Blacker (2000) 104 FCR 288 at [9]–[17]. Where, however, trade fixtures customarily belong to the tenant of the mortgagor, the mortgagee cannot claim them as against the tenant: Sanders v Davis (1885) 15 QBD 218. A mortgagor while in possession may permit trade fixtures to be put up and removed, so long as he does not either materially diminish the mortgagee’s security, or commit a breach of some express stipulation in the mortgage: Ellis v Glover and Hobson Ltd [1908] 1 KB 388 (CA). On the removal of fixtures and waste, see Mancetter Developments Ltd v Garmanson Ltd [1986] QB 1212; [1986] 1 All ER 449 (CA); (1986) 136 NLJ 675 (Wilkinson). The right of removal ceases when possession is taken by the mortgagee; but the exception as to trade fixtures in favour of a tenant does not apply in the case of fixtures erected on the mortgaged premises under a hire-purchase

agreement on the terms that, until paid for, they shall remain the property of the owner who supplied them. In such cases, if the mortgage is a legal mortgage and the mortgagee had no notice of the hire-purchase agreement (Re Samuel Allen & Sons Ltd [1907] 1 Ch 575; but see below) or the agreement was made later than the mortgage, the title of the mortgagee will prevail over that of the owner by virtue of his legal title unless the mortgagee has acquiesced in their removal: Hobson v Gorringe [1897] 1 Ch 182 (CA), distinguishing Cumberland Union Banking Co v Maryport Hematite Iron and Steel Co [1892] 1 Ch 415; Gough v Wood [1894] 1 QB 713 (CA); Reynolds v Ashby & Son; Lyon & Co v London City and Midland Bank [1903] 2 KB 135; but see below. Where, however, the mortgage is an equitable mortgage, and is given after the hire-purchase agreement, then, even if the mortgagee takes without notice of it, his title is postponed to that of the owner: Re Samuel Allen & Sons Ltd [1907] 1 Ch 575; Re Morrison, Jones and Taylor Ltd [1914] 1 Ch 50 (CA). Where a hire-purchase agreement [page 27] entitles the owner to enter and seize on default, etc, the owner has an equitable interest in the land to which the fixture is attached: Gough v Wood & Co [1894] 1 QB 713 at 722 (CA); Hobson v Gorringe [1897] 1 Ch 182 at 192 (CA); Reynolds v Ashby & Son Ltd, above; Kay’s Leasing Corp Pty Ltd v CSR Provident Fund Nominees Pty Ltd [1962] VR 429 at 436. The matter of hire-purchase agreements and fixtures is expressly covered by Australian state legislation: see Sykes and Walker, p 829. On hirepurchase agreement and fixtures, see [1990] Conv 275 (McCormack). In Whenuapai Joinery (1988) Ltd v Trust Bank Central Ltd [1994] 1 NZLR 406, a joinery supplied timber — under contract containing a Romalpa clause — which was incorporated into a building mortgaged to the defendant. The joinery company retook the timber but, as it had become a fixture, the mortgagee prevailed. Before the Bills of Sale Act 1878 (UK), a grantee by bill of sale of fixtures

annexed to mortgaged premises had no title against the mortgagee (Longbottom v Berry (1869) LR 5 QB 123), and this appears still to be the law: Reynolds v Ashby & Son Ltd, above. A mortgage of land which passes fixtures without mentioning them is not a bill of sale: Meux v Jacobs (1875) LR 7 HL 481.

Fixtures not passing 1.21 The general rule as to fixtures is subject to qualifications arising out of the terms of the security. Thus, if two kinds of property are mortgaged, and the fixtures are expressly included in one of them, the principle expressio unius est exclusio alterius may exclude the fixtures annexed to the other: see, for example, Hare v Horton (1833) 5 B & Ad 715; 110 ER 954. But quaere whether this would not be too refined a distinction to be followed now. The bare enumeration of specific fixtures in the mortgaged property will not rebut the inference that all fixtures were intended to pass: Mather v Fraser (1856) 2 K & J 536; 69 ER 895; and see Hamp v Bygrave (1983) 266 Estates Gazette 720 (QBD). Again, if it is the custom of the place that fixed machinery which can be removed without injury to the freehold should be so removed, and it has been treated between the parties as separate from the land and unaffected by the mortgage, such machinery may be held not to pass by a mortgage of the buildings and machinery: Trappes v Harter (1833) 2 Cr & M 153; 149 ER 712; cf Whitmore v Empson (1857) 23 Beav 313; 53 ER 123.

Loose parts of fixtures 1.22 With any fixture will pass, without any special mention, whatever, though accidentally detached from it, or not of its own nature a fixture, may be essential for the proper employment of the machine or fixed article of which it forms part, even though it is more or less capable of use in a detached state: Place v Fagg (1829) 4 Man & Ry KB 77; Mather v Fraser (1856) 2 K & J 536; 69 ER 895. The same rule is also applicable in the case of machinery not of a fixed kind: Re Richards; Ex parte Astbury; Ex parte Lloyd’s Banking Co (1869) 4 Ch App 630. And on the same principle a mortgage of a ship at sea with its tackle and appurtenances will pass a chronometer then on board belonging to the owner of the ship: Langton v Horton (1842) 1 Hare 549; 66 ER 1149.

Goodwill and other incidental rights 1.23 All incidental rights such as the goodwill of a business carried on upon and inseparably connected with the mortgaged property, and compensation for such goodwill when the property is taken compulsorily, will follow the security: Chissum v Dewes (1828) 5 Russ 29; 38 ER 938; King v Midland Railway Co (1868) 17 WR 113; Pile v Pile; [page 28] Ex parte Lambton (1876) 3 Ch D 36; Re Kitchin; Ex parte Punnett (1880) 16 Ch D 226. Note however that the same rule is not to be applied to the equity of redemption: see Re Bennett; Clarke v White [1899] 1 Ch 316. Thus where an abattoir was being carried on, the licence to operate the abattoir formed part of the security (Daniels v Pynbland (No 2) (1985) 4 BPR 9716 and see also Gay v Johnston (1936) 37 SR (NSW) 454), where a publican’s licence for a mortgaged hotel was held to constitute part of the mortgagee’s security though not mentioned in the deed: see also Rutter v Daniel (1882) 1 WR 724 and on appeal 30 WR 801; Re O’Brien (1883) 11 Ir R 213; Garrett v St Marylebone, Middlesex JJ (1884) 12 QBD 620. In 888 Casino & Tavern Pty Ltd v Hurlfobe Pty Ltd (1997) 8 BPR 15,505, Windeyer J held that a mortgage of a hotel carried a security over the licence so that the mortgagee entering into possession was entitled to call for the transfer of the licence. However, in Burns Philp Trustee Co Ltd v Ironside Investments Pty Ltd [1984] 2 Qd R 16 at 21 Shepherdson J held that in Queensland liquor licences and grocers’ licences were not property, but merely a personal right granted to the mortgagor. For a case of a permit to receive a quota of beer during wartime see: Re Carr [1918] 2 Ir R 448. See also, as to licences generally, Re Tonkin; Ex parte Jones (1933) 6 ABC 197. In Victoria, a milk licence was held to be included in the mortgage of a dairy: Re Millar; Burns v ES&A Bank (1952) ABC 49 at 60-1. See also Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Williamson (1943) 67 CLR 561 at 564 and Hoogerdyk v Condon (1990) 22 NSWLR 171. For the problems over this

type of security when the milk industry is deregulated, see National Australia Bank Ltd v Blacker (2000) 179 ALR 97; 104 FCR 288. So in Law Guarantee and Trust Society Ltd v Micham and Cheam Brewery Co Ltd [1906] 2 Ch 98 compensation for the licence on the compulsory acquisition of a mortgaged hotel was held to belong to the mortgagee as part of the mortgaged security. In Votrubec Investments Pty Ltd v Hospital Food & Services Pty Ltd (1981) 5 BPR 11,712, a case which held that the goodwill of a nursing home was part of the security, Helsham CJ in Eq said at 11,716, ‘It is clear from the authorities [those set out in the 8th English edition of this work, and repeated in this chapter] that the question of whether a mortgage of premises upon which a business is being conducted was intended to include in the security the goodwill of the business is a matter of construction and, no doubt, construction bearing in mind relevant surrounding circumstances’. The rule will not apply where the goodwill exists as a consequence of the personal skill of the mortgagor (Cooper v Metropolitan Board of Works (1883) 25 Ch D 472) or is excluded by the terms of the security: Whitley v Challis [1892] 1 Ch 64; Palmer v Barclays Bank Ltd (1971) 23 P & CR 30. See also County of Gloucester Bank v Rudry Merthyr Steam & House Coal Colliery Co [1895] 1 Ch 629. The benefit of some rights relating to the security, for instance appurtenant easements, will pass automatically with the mortgage of the security. Other rights need to be expressly assigned by separate provisions in the mortgage deed. Care must be taken with mortgages over home units that there is not a separate title to a garage or shares in a unit trust which will require special consideration: see, for example, King v AGC (Advances) Ltd [1983] 1 VR 682.

F. Sales with Right of Repurchase Mortgage or absolute conveyance 1.24 When a legal mortgage might be made in the form of an absolute conveyance of the property, it was sometimes doubtful on the terms of the

instrument whether it [page 29] really was a mortgage or an absolute conveyance. While the courts protect a bona fide purchaser (see, for example, Premier Group Ltd v Lidgard [1970] NZLR 280), and will not lightly infer an intention to make a mere security, if none is expressed (see Cotterell v Purchase (1734) Cases, t. Talb. 61; 25 ER 663), they will give effect to an intention, if proved to create a security. Courts will also take care that a borrower shall not suffer from the omission by fraud, mistake, or accident, are the usual requisites of a mortgage. The burden of proof is on the party claiming that the apparent absolute conveyance is merely a security: see Mayfair London Bank Ltd v Workman (1972) 22 EG 989, a case where the security was not proved. An instrument which purports to be an absolute conveyance may therefore be construed as a mortgage, where, according to the true intention of the parties, it was intended to be regarded as such: Douglas v Culverwell (1862) 4 De GF & J 20; 45 ER 1089; Re Duke of Marlborough; Davis v Whitehead [1894] 2 Ch 133; Grangeside Properties Ltd v Collingwood Securities Ltd [1964] 1 All ER 143; Re Kent & Sussex Sawmills Ltd [1947] Ch 177; Scottish & Newcastle Breweries Ltd v Liquidator of Rathbourne Hotel Co Ltd [1970] SLT 313; and Re Universal Management Ltd [1983] NZLR 462. As to mortgages of chattels, see 5.15.

Construction as to the nature of the transaction 1.25 Whether a transaction is a mortgage or conveyance depends upon the construction of the documents and the evidence of the surrounding circumstances or factual matrix of the transaction: see Prenn v Simmonds [1971] 1 WLR 1381; Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337; and see Wily v Endeavour Health Care Services Pty Ltd (No 5) (2003) 11 BPR 21,081 affirmed on appeal [2003] NSWCA 321. The nature of the transaction depends upon the construction of the relevant documents in the light of any admissible evidence, even though the parties

may not have realised the consequences: Swiss Bank Corp v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1982] AC 584. Parol evidence is admissible to prove the true nature of the transaction: Barton v Bank of New South Wales (1890) 15 App Cas 379; C & G Kreglinger v New Patagonia Meat & Cold Storage Co Ltd [1914] AC 25 at 47; Hayes Securities Ltd v Bambury [1991] 1 NZLR 304 at 307; Gurfinkel v Bentley Pty Ltd (1966) 116 CLR 98; and see also Maxwell v Lady Mountacute (1719) Prec Ch 526; 24 ER 235; Cripps v Jee (1793) 4 Bro CC 472; 29 ER 994; Sevier v Greenway (1815) 19 Ves 413; 34 ER 570; Allenby v Dalton (1827) 5 LJ KB (OS) 312; Wilson v Ward [1930] 2 DLR 433; and Nunn v Wily (2001) 10 BPR 18,983. On the parol evidence rule generally, see English Law Commission Report on Parol Evidence Rule, English Law Comm No 154 (1986) (Cmd 9700) and State Rail Authority of NSW v Heath Outdoor Pty Ltd (1986) 7 NSWLR 170. The court will construe a document as a mortgage where there is parol evidence of non-execution, erasure, or omission by mistake or fraud of an intended defeasance or proviso for redemption: Maxwell v Lady Mountacute, above; England v Codrington (1758) 1 Eden 169; 28 ER 649; AG v Crofts (1788) 4 Bro Parl Cas 136; 2 ER 91; Card v Jaffray (1805) 2 Sch & Lef 374. The Statute of Frauds would not be allowed to be pleaded to cover what would amount to a fraud, unless perhaps the parties deliberately abstained from putting their meaning into writing: Re Duke of Marlborough [1894] 2 Ch 133; and see Dalton v Christofis [1978] WAR 42 at 46-7. The court will also hold that there is a mere mortgage if a separate defeasance or agreement for a right of redemption has been made by the mortgagee or a duly authorised agent of the mortgagee either in writing or orally, or if it appears from recitals in, or by inference drawn from, the contents of other instruments, or from the payment of interest or other circumstances, that the conveyance was intended to be redeemable(Webber v Farmer (1718) 4 Bro Parl Cas 170; 2 ER 116; Maxwell v Lady Mountacute; Cripps v Jee; [page 30]

Sevier v Greenway; Allenby v Dalton (all above); Barton v Bank of New South Wales (1890) 15 App Cas 379 (considered in United Dominions Trust Ltd v Beech [1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 546; Beattie v Jenkinson [1971] 3 All ER 495; [1971] 1 WLR 1419)); but see: Tull v Owen (1840) 4 Y & C Ex 192; 160 ER 965. See also as to whether a transaction was an absolute assignment or an assignment by way of charge: Chase Manhattan Asia Ltd v Official Receiver and Liquidator of First Bangkok City Finance Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 1181 (PC), reversing the Hong Kong Court of Appeal which had held the transaction to be an absolute assignment in [1988] 2 HKLR 618. Reference should also be made to Road Chalets Pty Ltd v Thornton Motors Pty Ltd (1986) 47 SASR 532; Stern v McArthur (1988) 165 CLR 489 and to 3.6 and 3.7.

Fraudulent or secret conveyance 1.26 If an absolute conveyance is made with a secret defeasance, in order, by concealing the defeasance, to commit a fraud, the defeasance will be void against a purchaser who had no notice of the defeasance: Webber v Farmer (1718) 4 Bro Parl Cas 170; 2 ER 116. If a mortgage has been fraudulently made to appear as an absolute conveyance it will not be corrected at the instance of those concerned in the fraud: Baldwin v Cawthorne (1812) 19 Ves 166; 34 ER 480. A mortgage may be created by a deed duly executed, though it is retained by the debtor without communication with the creditor, unless it is shown that there was fraud in the execution, or that it was delivered as an escrow, and was intended to operate conditionally: Exton v Scott (1833) 6 Sim 31; 58 ER 507. As to escrows, see 3.5.

Mortgage or conveyance with option of repurchase 1.27 Although there are certain cases in which conveyances, apparently absolute, may be construed as mortgages, an absolute conveyance, with an agreement for repurchase or that the conveyance shall be void upon payment of a certain fixed sum at a fixed time, will create a mere right of repurchase to be exercised according to the strict terms of the power. It will not create such a right of redemption as is incidental to a mortgage unless it is proved that the transaction was in the nature of a mortgage security, and that the grantor and grantee were intended to have mutual and reciprocal rights to insist upon reconveyance of the estate and repayment of the consideration: see St John v

Wareham ((1635) noted below); Barrell v Sabine (1684) 1 Vern 268; 23 ER 462; Ensworth v Griffiths (1706) 5 Bro Parl Cas 184; 2 ER 615; Goodman v Grierson (1813) 2 Ball & B 274; Perry v Meddowcroft (1841) 4 Beav 197; 49 ER 314; Alderson v White (1858) 2 De G & J 97; 45 ER 924; Shaw v Jeffery (1860) 13 Moo PCC 432; 15 ER 162; Tapply v Sheather (1862) 7 LT 298; Manchester v Sheffield & Lincolnshire Railway Co v North Central Railway Co (1888) 13 App Cas 554; Beckett v Tower Assets Co [1891] 1 QB 1 at 25; Gilbert J McCaul (Aust) Pty Ltd v Pitt Club Ltd (1957) 59 SR (NSW) 122; Hall v Busst (1960) 104 CLR 206; Gurfinkel v Bentley Pty Ltd (1966) 116 CLR 98; Kreick v Wansbrough (1973) 35 DLR (3d) 275; Chase Manhattan Asia Ltd v Official Receiver and Liquidator of First Bangkok City Finance Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 1181 (PC); and Ramsbotham, Coote’s Treatise on the Law of Mortgages, 9th ed, Stevens and Sons, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1927, pp 27–34. It is not the purpose of this work to examine the limitations that there may be on arrangements for repurchase: for some of the difficulties, see Hall v Busst. The point to be made is that with some exceptions (see, for example, the line of cases including Pegg v Wisden (1852) 16 Beav 239; 51 ER 770), equity does not intervene to give relief in the case of a repurchase if any of the conditions precedent to the repurchase are not fulfilled: see Barrell v Sabine (1684) 1 Vern 268; 23 ER 462 and Gilbert J McCaul (Aust) Pty Ltd v Pitt Club Ltd, above. Accordingly, repurchase was refused where a limited time was fixed for repayment: Williams v Owen (1840) 5 My & Cr 303; 41 ER 386; Acton v Acton (1704) Prec Ch 237; 24 ER 115; but see Waters v Mynn (1850) 14 Jur 341. Again, repurchase was refused where the agreement for repurchase was to be void on failure [page 31] in punctual payment of the rent at which the land had been demised to the vendor and there was a default in compliance with the conditions: Davis v Thomas (1831) Russ & M 506; 39 ER 195; St John v Wareham (1635), cited in Thornborough v Baker 3 Swan 628 at 631; 36 ER 1000 at 1001; and see MacLaine v Gatty [1921] 1 AC 376. In the case of a mortgage, the penalty or forfeiture is introduced for the purpose of security only, and, in case of

default in payment at the appointed time, the mortgagee is compensated by receiving interest. However, in the case of a defeasible purchase, forfeiture is out of the question, the estate being absolutely vested in the grantee; and the power of repurchase, not arising from the nature of the contract, but being a special privilege given to one of the parties without any corresponding right in the other, must be strictly exercised. As to the strict observance of option terms see also Hare v Nicoll [1966] 2 QB 130. In so far as many of the cases just referred to indicate that estoppels may not be relied upon to relieve against the strict legal position, they may need to be re-examined in the light of recent developments in the law of estoppel in the High Court of Australia. In all these cases the question is: what was the real intention of the parties?: Manchester, Sheffield & Lincolnshire Railway Co v North Central Wagon Co (1888) 13 App Cas 554 at 568. The rule is that prima facie an absolute conveyance, containing nothing to show that the relation of debtor and creditor is to exist between the parties, does not cease to be an absolute conveyance and become a mortgage merely because the vendor stipulates that he shall have a right to repurchase(Alderson v White (1858) 2 De G & J 97 at 105; 44 ER 924 at 928; cf Wily v Endeavour Health Care Services Pty Ltd (No 5) [2003] NSWCA 321) where it was found that the true intention of the parties was to grant an option to purchase.

The intent of the transaction 1.28 The intent of a transaction is to be found from common sense, the fair construction of the documents and surrounding circumstances: Alderson v White (1858) 2 De G & J 97 at 105; 44 ER 924 at 928; Hayes Securities Ltd v Bamburg [1991] l NZLR 304 at 307. The decided cases on the subject merely produce guidelines. Thus, the absence of a covenant to repay will not be decisive: Hayes Securities v Bamburg. The enquiry usually is whether as a matter of substance rather than form the transaction is one of mortgage: Westfield Holdings Ltd v Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd (1992) 32 NSWLR 194 at 199. Although parties cannot merely by attaching a label to their document alter the nature of the proper legal classification of the rights they have dealt with, the label which the parties have given will be given considerable weight unless it can be seen that it is not a genuine statement of the parties’ intention: Australian Mutual Provident Society v Chaplin (1978) 18 ALR 385

at 389-90; sub nom Australian Mutual Provident Society v Allan (1978) 52 ALJR 407 at 409 (PC); Narich Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Payroll Tax [1983] 2 NSWLR 597; [1984] ICR 286 (PC); Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Krokas Investments Pty Ltd (1995) 133 ALR 545 at 550.

Test for meaning of instrument 1.29 In all cases the real question is: what was the intention of the parties? Where the transaction is fully documented this question will virtually become: what, upon a fair construction, is the meaning of the instrument? The true nature rather than the form of the transaction is to be considered: Re Wilson; Ex parte Official Receiver in Bankruptcy (1890) 25 QBD 27; Madell v Thomas [1891] 1 QB 230; Salt v Marquess of Northampton [1892] AC 1; Bradley v Carritt [1903] AC 253; Lewis v Frank Love Ltd [1961] 1 All ER 446; Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil Great Britain Ltd [1983] 1 WLR 87; [1983] 1 All ER 944, on appeal [1985] 1 WLR 173; [1985] 1 All ER 303; Re Row Dal Constructions Pty Ltd [1966] VR 249; Arnal v Arnal (1969) 6 DLR (3d) 245; Automobile Association (Canterbury) Inc v Australasian Secured Deposits Ltd [1973] 1 NZLR 417; Re Universal Management Ltd [1983] NZLR 462; Hayes Securities Ltd v Bamburg [1991] 1 NZLR 304. [page 32] Unless it is demonstrated that the title of the documents or the documents themselves are a sham, the question of the proper legal categorisation is a matter of construction. However, as Millett LJ said in Orion Finance Ltd v Crown Financial Management Ltd [1996] 2 BCLC 78 at 84: This does not mean that the terms which the parties have adopted are necessarily determinative. The substance of the parties’ agreement must be found in the language they have used, but the categorisation of a document is determined by the legal effect which it is intended to have, and if when properly construed the effect of the document as a whole is inconsistent with the terminology which the parties have used, then their ill-chosen language must yield to the substance.

See also Re ASRS Establishment Ltd [2000] 2 BCLC 631 at 638; and Wily v Endeavour Health Care Services Pty Ltd (No 5) [2003] NSWCA 321. The inadequacy of the consideration to the value of the property, the taking

by the grantee of immediate possession under the conveyance, and the payment (by him or by the grantor) of the costs of the transaction, or of insurances and other outgoings of the property, will be taken into consideration, but will not be conclusive upon the question whether a doubtful instrument was intended to take effect by way of mortgage or by way of sale: Thornborough v Baker (1675) 3 Swan 628, 632; 36 ER 1000; Davis v Thomas (1831) Russ & M 506; 39 ER 195; Williams v Owen (1840) 5 My & Cr 303; 41 ER 386; Langton v Horton (1842) 5 Beav 9; 49 ER 479; Alderson v White (1858) 2 De G & J 97; 44 ER 924; Douglas v Culverwell (1862) 4 De GF & J 20; 45 ER 1089. Circumstances of pressure upon the grantor (as where he is insolvent or is represented by the same solicitor as the grantee) will materially influence the court in construing an apparently absolute or conditional sale as a mortgage, where, in the absence of such circumstances, the mere insufficiency of price would be little regarded. Weight will also be given to the circumstance that, in the peculiar position of the grantor, a mortgage might be beneficial to him when a sale would not: Fee v Cobine (1847) 11 Ir Eq R 406. However, it may be shown that the grantor entered into the contract with full knowledge of the consequences: Bonham v Newcomb (1681) 1 Vern 214 at 232; 23 ER 422 at 435; Langton v Horton (1842) 5 Beav 9; 49 ER 479.

Defeasible purchase of equity of redemption 1.30 The strict compliance with the conditions has been upheld even in transactions relating to securities. For instance, when the equity of redemption is released to the mortgagee by the mortgagor, it has been agreed that the mortgagee should reconvey upon repayment to the mortgagor within a fixed time of the original debt, with the money paid for the release and interest and the outlay for repairs and improvements: Ensworth v Griffiths (1706) 5 Bro Parl Cas 184; 2 ER 615; Gossip v Wright (1863) 32 LJ Ch 648; Sterne v Beck (1863) 1 De GJ & Sm 595; 46 ER 236; Wallingford v Mutual Society (1880) 5 App Cas 685; Protector Endowment & Annuity Loan Co v Grice (1880) 5 QBD 592. Similarly, if the creditor agrees to forgo part of his debt upon payment of the residue on a fixed day, or to refrain from entering judgment if an insurance is kept up, in the former case no relief will be given in case of default, but the mortgagee will be entitled to the whole of the original debt, and in the latter the creditor can take advantage of failure in the

strict performance of the conditions: Ford v Earl of Chesterfield (1854) 19 Beav 428; 52 ER 416; Parry v Great Ship Co (1863) 4 B & S 556; 122 ER 568 and see Thompson v Hudson (1869) LR 4 HL 1; Tasburgh v Echlin (1733) 3 Bro Parl Cas 265; 1 ER 934; Ogden v Battams (1855) 1 Jur NS 791; King v Bromley (1709) 2 Eq Cas Abr 595; 22 ER 500.

Mortgage ‘as beneficial owner’ 1.31 Section 78 of the NSW Act and ss 76 and 77 of the Victorian Act give special magic to the term ‘as beneficial owner’. Sometimes a court will construe these words [page 33] in a mortgage as used merely to pick up the statutory covenants implied by use of these words. Sometimes, especially in the states where there is no equivalent of NSW s 78, the words will be taken to have the effect of charging only land which the mortgagee owns beneficially and not that which he merely holds as trustee. See Ex parte Stanford (1886) 17 QBD 259; Avco Financial Services Ltd v White [1977] VR 561 at 565; Corozo Pty Ltd v Total Australia Ltd [1987] 2 Qd R 11 at 19, on appeal [1988] 2 Qd R 366 at 372; and Custom Credit Corp Ltd v Ravi Nominees Pty Ltd (1992) 8 WAR 42.

‘Subject to mortgage’ 1.32 Commercial considerations may bring about the situation where a contract is made ‘subject to mortgage’ or ‘subject to finance’ etc. Until recently, most of such clauses failed for uncertainty. In Meehan v Jones (1982) 149 CLR 571, the High Court made it clear that, generally speaking, such clauses were not void for uncertainty, and ‘subject to finance’ clauses have since then been upheld as a general rule: see, for example, Progress & Properties (Strathfield) Pty Ltd v Crumblin (1984) 3 BPR 9496. See also the article by Swanton in (1984) 58 ALJ 633 and 690. The English cases are reviewed in Graham v Pitkin [1992] 2 All ER 235; [1992] 1 WLR 403 (PC).

G. Equitable Mortgages

Generally 1.33 The essence of any transaction by way of mortgage is (1) that a debtor confers upon his creditor a proprietary interest in property of the debtor, or undertakes in a binding manner to do so, by the realisation or appropriation of which the creditor can procure the discharge of the debtor’s liability to him, and (2) that the proprietary interest is redeemable, or the obligation to create it is defeasible, in the event of the debtor discharging his liability. If there has been no legal transfer of a proprietary interest, but merely a binding undertaking to confer such an interest, that obligation, if specifically enforceable, will confer a proprietary interest in the subject matter in equity: Swiss Bank Corp v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1982] AC 584 at 595 (CA and HL); [1980] 2 All ER 419 at 426, per Buckley LJ; affirmed [1982] AC 584; [1981] 2 All ER 449 (HL). A binding promise for delivery of a certificate of title by way of security if specifically enforceable will thus create an equitable mortgage and an interest in land, Pico Holdings Ltd v WaveVistas Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 13: (2005) 79 ALJR 825:214 ALR 392 and see National Australia Bank Ltd v Clowes [2013] NSWCA 179. An equitable mortgage is a contract which operates as a security and is enforceable under the equitable jurisdiction of the court. The court carries it into effect either by giving the creditor immediately the appropriate remedies or by compelling the debtor to execute a security in accordance with the contract: Ashton v Corrigan (1871) LR 13 Eq 76; Hermann v Hodges (1873) LR 16 Eq 18. It is applicable to all property of which a legal mortgage can be made, even where statute provides — as, for example, in the case of ships — a particular method for passing the legal property therein. Whether a particular transaction gives rise to an equitable mortgage must depend upon the intention of the parties ascertained from what they have done in the then existing circumstances, see 3.37ff. The intention may be expressed or it may be inferred. If the debtor undertakes to segregate a particular fund or asset and to pay the debt out of that fund or asset, the inference may be drawn, in the absence of any contrary indication, that the parties’ intention is that the creditor should have such a proprietary interest in the segregated fund or asset as will enable him to realise out of it the amount owed to him by the debtor.

[page 34] Notwithstanding that the matter depends upon the intention of the parties, if, upon the true construction of the relevant documents, the parties have entered into a transaction the legal effect of which is to give rise to an equitable mortgage in favour of one of them over the property of the other, the fact that they may not have realised this consequence will not mean that there is no mortgage. They must be presumed to intend the consequences of their acts: Swiss Bank Corp v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1982] AC 584 at 595-6 per Buckley LJ; [1980] 2 All ER 419 at 426; Thames Guaranty Ltd v Campbell [1985] QB 210 at 218; [1984] 1 All ER 144 at 149; affirmed [1985] QB 210; [1984] 2 All ER 585 (CA). Where the subject matter is precarious, this may be an indication that a security was not intended: Swiss Bank Corp v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1982] AC 584 at 596-7 per Buckley LJ; [1980] 2 All ER 419 at 427 (CA); affirmed [1981] 2 All ER 449 (HL). It must be clearly noted that there is a distinct disadvantage in a creditor merely taking an equitable mortgage, particularly the possible loss of priority if subsequent mortgages are created: see, for example, McCarthy and Stone Ltd v Julian S Hodge & Co Ltd [1971] 2 All ER 973; [1971] 1 WLR 1547; Barclays Bank Ltd v Taylor [1973] Ch 63; [1972] 2 All ER 752; and (1972) 116 Sol Jo (Harris).

Creation of equitable mortgages 1.34 An equitable mortgage may be created by general words: William Brandt’s Sons & Co v Dunlop Rubber Co Ltd [1905] AC 454 at 462; Elders Pastoral Ltd v Bank of New Zealand [1990] 1 WLR 1478 (PC). No particular form is necessary: see Vrkic v Otta International Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 433. The ordinary debenture of a limited company is a common example of this. Again a power of attorney to receive rent of land until a loan is repaid may be held to constitute a charge: Wilkinson v Wilkinson (1819) 3 Swan 515; 36 ER 958; Spooner v Sandilands (1842) 1Y & CCC 390; 62 ER 939; Abbott v Stratton (1846) 3 Jo & Lat 603; Re Parkinson’s Estate (1865) 13 LT 26 at 27 (Ir Ch). This lack of a requirement as to form is in stark contrast to a legal mortgage. A mortgage of all the mortgagor’s ‘real and personal property whatsoever

and wheresoever’ is not void for uncertainty, nor as being against public policy, if it is possible at the time when the charge is sought to be enforced to point out the property comprised in it: Re Clarke; Coombe v Carter (1887) 36 Ch D 348 (CA); Re Turcan (1888) 40 Ch D 5 (CA); Tailby v Official Receiver (1888) 13 App Cas 523 (HL); Re Kelcey [1899] 2 Ch 530 at 532-4; Bridge Wholesale Acceptance Corp (Aust) Ltd v Burnard (1992) 27 NSWLR 415 and see Syrett v Egerton [1957] 3 All ER 331 at 332, 334; compare Barker v Barker [1952] 1 All ER 1128 (CA). In Cradock v Scottish Provident Institution (1893) 69 LT 380 at 382, Romer J said, ‘To constitute a charge in equity by deed or writing it is not necessary that any general words of charge should be used. It is sufficient if the court can fairly gather from the instrument an intention by the parties that the property therein referred to should constitute a security’. This decision was affirmed on appeal (1894) 70 LT 718. This test was utilised in Avco Finance Services Ltd v White [1977] VR 561 at 564 where it was held that a loan agreement containing the following words conferred a valid equitable charge, ‘As for the security for the payment of the loan and interest I agree … to charge as beneficial owner all freehold and leasehold interest in the land which I may now have or during the currency of the loan may acquire, including.…’ In Corozo Pty Ltd v Total Australia Ltd [1987] 2 Qd R 11 at 18, Connolly J pointed out that while a promise to give a real security without identifying the land gave no charge on particular land (Fremoult v Dedire (1718) 1 P Wms 429; 24 ER 458; Williams v Lucas (1789) 2 Cox 160; 30 ER 73; Berrington v Evans (1839) 3 Y & C Ex 384; 160 ER 751), a promise to charge all one’s lands was on a different footing: Re Kelcey [1899] 2 Ch 530; Clark v Raymor (Brisbane) Pty Ltd (No 2) [1982] Qd R 790 at 795. The Corozo decision went on appeal, but the appeal was dismissed: [1988] 2 Qd R 366. [page 35] These matters are most relevant to mortgages and charges imposed under agreements with suppliers of goods considered in detail in 1.34.

Formal requirements

1.35 It is essential that an equitable mortgage be by deed if the mortgagee is to have the power of sale and other powers conferred on a mortgagee by statute — that is, under s 106 of the NSW Act and s 101 of the Victorian Act. An equitable mortgage over land will need to comply with formal requirements under ss 23C and 54A of the NSW Act, s 53 of the Victorian Act and s 126 of the Instruments Act 1958 (Vic) respectively unless there has been part performance: Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Widin (1990) 102 ALR 289. Thus, in Nearhaze Pty Ltd v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (1999) 9 BPR 17,273, a wife was not bound by an informal mortgage where only the husband had signed a letter containing a full description of the mortgaged property and other essential terms; but cf Hickey v Powershift Tractors Pty Ltd (1998) 9 BPR 17,339 (Bryson J) where it was held that fraud in relation to the witnessing of a mortgage instrument did not extend to the substance of the transaction, so the document operated as an equitable mortgage. A classic situation of an informal equitable mortgage is where a security is obtained by deposit of title deeds: see 3.37 ff. Such a mortgage will be valid not only with respect to local land, but also over foreign land, notwithstanding that the foreign jurisdiction has no equivalent notion. Thus land in China has been so mortgaged in equity: Re Scheibler; Ex parte Holthausen (1874) 9 Ch App 722. See also Re Courtney; Ex parte Pollard (1840) 4 Deac 27; Mont & Ch 239; British South Africa Co v De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd [1910] 2 Ch 502 (reversed on other grounds [1912] AC 52) and Re Smith; Lawrence v Kitson [1916] 2 Ch 206. Equitable mortgages may be created over shares in a company by deposit of the share certificate: see Harrold v Plenty [1901] 2 Ch 314. For a case where it was held that there was an informal but valid equitable charge over a motor car by handing the bank the car keys, see Re Papesch [1992] 1 NZLR 751.

Types of equitable mortgage 1.36 Equitable mortgages may be divided into two classes, namely: mortgages by equitable owners of their equitable rights (see 1.33); and the creation by legal owners of equitable rights by way of security (see 1.34). Equitable rights by way of equitable charges are dealt with in 1.37 and 2.2,

and equitable liens in 2.22 ff.

Mortgages of equitable rights 1.37 Mortgages by equitable owners of their equitable rights usually occur in the case of mortgages of interests by beneficiaries under a trust or in the case of second and subsequent mortgages involving old system land. Where a beneficiary is mortgaging an interest under a trust, the mortgage must be in writing signed by the mortgagor or the mortgagor’s agent authorised in writing, or made by will: see English Act s 53(1)(c), s 23C of the NSW Act and s 53(1)(c) of the Victorian Act and the corresponding sections in other states and territories shown in the Table of Comparable Sections in the Introduction. If the mortgage is not based on valuable consideration, it is essential that it should purport to operate by way of complete assignment of all the mortgagor’s equitable interest, for although equity will give effect to a completed voluntary assignment of equitable rights (see, for example, Kekewich v Manning (1851) 1 De GM & G 176; 42 ER 519), it will not give effect to an incomplete assignment or one resting on executory contract only: Re Earl of Lucan (1890) 45 Ch D 470 and see 7.8. The mortgagee should give notice in writing to the trustees who are the legal owners in order to preserve priority: Dearie v Hall (1828) 3 Russ 1; 38 ER 475; English Act ss 137, 138, [page 36] NSW Act s 12, Victorian Act s 134 and for other sections see the Table of Comparable Sections in the Introduction. See also ‘Equitable charges’ (2.2ff), noting the difference between the two.

Equitable mortgages by legal owners 1.38 Equitable mortgages of the property of legal owners are created by some instrument or act which is insufficient to confer a legal estate or title, but which, being founded on valuable consideration, shows the intention of the parties to create a present security (see Williams v Burlington Investments Ltd (1977) 121 Sol Jo 424 (HL)) or, in other words, evidences a contract to do so. See National Provincial and Union Bank of England v Charnley

[1924] 1 KB 431 at 440 (CA); Swiss Bank Corp v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1982] AC 584 at 595 (CA), per Buckley LJ (citing the 9th English edition of this work); [1980] 2 All ER 419 at 425; Thames Guaranty Ltd v Campbell [1985] QB 210; [1984] 1 All ER 144; [1984] All ER 585 (CA); Westfield Holdings Ltd v Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd (1992) 32 NSWLR 194 at 200 (citing the 10th English edition of this work). For cases where the intention could not be found, see Travis and Arnold Ltd v Burnett [1964] EGD 318; Georgiades v Edward Wolfe & Co Ltd [1965] Ch 487; [1964] 3 All ER 433; Thomas v Rose [1968] 3 All ER 765; Swiss Bank Corp v Lloyds Bank Ltd, above. A binding obligation that a particular fund shall be applied in a particular manner may found no more than an injunction to restrain its application in another way, but if the obligation be to pay out of the fund a debt due by one party to the transaction to the other, the fund belonging to or being due to the debtor, this amounts to an equitable assignment pro tanto of the fund: Swiss Bank Corp v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1982] AC 584 at 596; [1980] 2 All ER 419 at 426 (CA); affirmed [1981] 2 All ER 449 (HL). The initial distinction is, therefore, between a transaction which creates merely personal contractual rights (which may nevertheless be enforceable against third parties under the rule in De Mattos v Gibson (1859) 4 De G & J 276; 45 ER 108 considered in Swiss Bank Corp v Lloyds Bank Ltd) and a transaction which creates proprietary rights. In practice the most important type of equitable mortgage is one created by deposit of title deeds, whether with or without a memorandum or other instrument of charge: Russel v Russel (1783) 1 Bro CC 269; 28 ER 1121. This type of equitable mortgage is examined in detail in 3.37 ff. Where proprietary rights are created, the transaction will be either an equitable mortgage or an equitable charge. Under an equitable mortgage the intention is that the creditor shall have a transfer of the property, whereas under an equitable charge a transfer is not intended, but a present right to have the property appropriated to meet the debt in the event of default: see 2.1 and 7.8. Formal agreements for mortgages are not common, save in a commercial context: see Capital Finance Co Ltd v Stokes [1968] 1 All ER 573; affirmed [1969] 1 Ch 261; [1968] 3 All ER 625 (CA). Another quite common instance of an equitable mortgage is where a

formal legal mortgage has been attempted, but proves ineffective for some reason, such as some defect in execution or formality (see, for example, 3.50) or lack of title of the mortgagor (see 13.39).

Mortgages/Charges in supply agreements 1.39 It is relatively common for a company supplying commercial goods on credit to include in its customer supply agreement a clause (usually hidden in the small print as usual conditions on the reverse side) a clause mortgaging or charging all the land which the customer has or may have in the future. Usually guarantors are bound as well. Many [page 37] of these are badly drawn and fail to deal with the situation where the guarantor owns property as joint tenant with a spouse. In Bridge Wholesale Acceptance Corp (Aust) Ltd v Burnard (1992) 27 NSWLR 415 (distinguishing Re Clarke (1887) 35 Ch D 109) it was held that equity would enforce such agreements notwithstanding that they were couched in wide terms. See also Wilkinson v Wilkinson (1819) 3 Swan 515 at 527; 36 ER 958 at 962; Spooner v Sandilands (1842) 1 Y & CCC 390 at 399; 62 ER 939 at 943; Re Murrell (1984) 57 ALR 85 and Avco Financial Services Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1989) 17 NSWLR 679 at 680; Welsh Development Agency v Export Finance Co Ltd [1992] BCLC 148. Often it will be difficult to ascertain whether the transaction is one creating an equitable mortgage or charge or some other legal relationship. There is no one clear touchstone by which one can determine this; all relevant circumstances and the terms of the documentation must be considered.

Other examples of such mortgages 1.40

Other examples are:

a written agreement to create a security in consideration of a debt due or an advance made (Eyre v M’Dowell (1861) 9 HLC 619; 11 ER 871; Parish v Poole (1884) 53 LT 35; Re Hurley’s Estate [1894] 1 IR 488;

Capital Finance Co Ltd v Stokes, above; Thompson v Yockney (1914) 6 WWR 1397); a document charging property with the debt and containing a declaration by the debtor that he holds the property in trust for the creditor (London and County Banking Co v Goddard [1897] 1 Ch 642); a written undertaking given in consideration of a loan to hold title deeds to the order of the lender (Re Heathstar Properties Ltd [1966] 1 All ER 628; [1966] 1 WLR 993); a written authority for a creditor to sell and retain a debt out of the proceeds (Re Cook; Ex parte Hodgson (1821) 1 Gl & J 12); an assignment in writing of rent (Ex parte Wills (1970) 1 Ves 162; 30 ER 281 (compare Re Whitting; Ex parte Hall (1879) 10 Ch D 615 (CA))); any written instruments showing the intention of the parties that a security should be thereby created, although it contains no general words of charges — for example, the appointment of a receiver to receive rents and pay an annuity thereout (Cradock v Scottish Provident Institution (1894) 70 LT 718); a power of attorney to a creditor to enter up judgment in his favour (Cook v Fowler (1874) LR 7 HL 27 at 35), or to receive rents and profits and apply them in payment of interest, or to repay himself out of the surplus proceeds of the sale of property in mortgage to the debtor, or to mortgage the debtor’s land for payment of the debt (Spooner v Sandilands (1842) 1Y & C Ch Cas 390; 62 ER 939; Abbott v Stratton (1846) 3 Jo & Lat at 603; Re Cook; Ex parte Hodgson, above; Re Parkinson’s Estate (1865) 13 LT 26); In appropriate cases, parties may agree that an existing legal mortgage may stand as security for an additional obligation. Such an agreement would seem to operate so as to create an equitable mortgage in respect of the additional obligation, unless the mortgage is an ‘all moneys’ mortgage which is sufficiently wide to encompass the additional obligation or there is a formal variation of the original mortgage. Examples are: (Becket v Cordley (1784) 1 Bro CC 353; 28 ER 1174; Banks v Whittall (1847) 1 De M & G 536; 63 ER 1182; Williams v State Bank of NSW (1993) 6 BPR 97,485; and see GWH Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1994)

6 BPR 14,073); It will be seen from the above examples that an equitable mortgage of land, not being by way of deposit of title deeds, requires to be evidenced in writing (NSW [page 38] Act s 54A; Instruments Act 1958 (Vic) s 127; Mounsey v Rankin (1885) Cab & El 496) or supported by a sufficient act of part performance. An equitable mortgage of personalty, not being of an equitable interest in personalty (which is required to be in writing: see NSW Act s 23C(1)(c)), is not required to be in writing: Tibbits v George (1836) 5 Ad & El 107; 111 ER 1107; Parish v Poole (1884) 53 LT 35 at 38; Brown, Shipley & Co v Kough (1885) 29 Ch D 848 at 854 (CA).

Specific performance of agreements for mortgages 1.41 The general rule is that specific performance will not be ordered in respect of a contract to make or take a loan of money, whether or not the loan is to be on security, so long as the contract remains executory: see, for example, Hunter v Langford (Lord) (1828) 2 Moll 272; Rogers v Challis (1859) 27 Beav 175; 54 ER 68; Sickel v Mosenthal (1862) 30 Beav 371; 54 ER 932; Larios v Gurety (1873) L.R. 5 PC 346; Western Wagon & Property Co v West [1892] 1 Ch 271; South African Territories v Wallington [1898] AC 309; Takemura v National Australia Bank Ltd (2003) 11 BPR 21,185, where the loan was at an excessively high rate of interest. The parties will be left to their remedies in damages: Astor Properties Ltd v Tunbridge Wells Equitable Friendly Society [1936] 1 All ER 531; Manchester & Oldham Bank v Cook (1883) 49 LT 674; Trans Trust SPRL v Danubian Trading Co Ltd [1952] 2 QB 297; Cottrill v Steyning & Little Hampton Building Society [1966] 2 All ER 295; [1966] 1 WLR 753; Loan Investment Corp of Australasia Ltd v Bonner [1970] NZLR 724; Wadsworth v Lydall [1981] 2 All ER 401; [1981] 1 WLR 598 and Popular Homes Ltd v Circuit Developments Ltd [1979] 2 NZLR 642. Palmer J put the matter simply in Kama v Wong (No 1) [2005] NSWSC

427: It is well established that equity very rarely, if ever, grants specific performance of a simple agreement to lend money. There must be extraordinary circumstances before equity will compel an unwilling lender to outlay funds in a transaction which the lender feels is not worth the risk. If a simple loan agreement is breached by the lender then equity usually leaves the disappointed borrower to its remedy in damages.

However, an agreement to execute a mortgage will ordinarily be specifically enforced if the mortgage has already advanced the monies: Takemura v National Australia Bank Ltd (2003) 11 BPR 21, 185 and see Northcote and Fry, Specific Performance, 6th ed, Stevens, London, 1921, [54]. Especially in Australia, it has been recognised in more recent times that, commercially speaking, damages may not be an adequate remedy for a breach of a promise to give a mortgage and that, accordingly, specific performance should in appropriate circumstances be decreed. The first case to state this clearly was Wight v Haberdan Pty Ltd [1984] 3 NSWLR 280; see also Corpers (No 664) Pty Ltd v NZI Securities Australia Ltd (1989) NSW ConvR 55-475; Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Widin (1990) 26 FCR 21; Bridge Wholesale Acceptance Corp (Australia) Pty Ltd v Fairstar Pty Ltd (1991) ACL Rep 295 NSW 4. Even before the recent developments just referred to, specific performance of an enforceable contract to give security was ordered where the loan has actually been made or the debt or other obligation incurred. This was because a mere claim to damages or repayment was obviously less valuable than a security in the event of a debtor’s insolvency: Swiss Bank Corp v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1982] AC 584, especially at 595 and Thames Guaranty Ltd v Campbell [1985] QB 210. See also Northcote and Fry, as above, pp 24 ff and Halsbury’s Laws of England, 5th ed, vol 77, [145]. Equity may enforce an agreement for mortgage even though the property concerned was not identified at the date of the agreement, so long as it is able to be identified at the date of trial: Re Clarke; Crombe v Carter (1887) 36 Ch D 348 at 352. The mere fact that the agreement is couched in wide terms and may deprive a person of his or her means [page 39]

of subsistence if enforced is no reason to deny specific performance: Bridge Wholesale Acceptance Corp (Aust) Ltd v Burnard (1992) 27 NSWLR 415. See also Alexsen v O’Brien (1949) 80 CLR 219 at 226 where Dixon, J notes the power of equity to settle the terms of a mortgage in a specific performance suit. For analogous situations see also Sweet & Maxwell Ltd v Universal News Services Pty Ltd [1964] 2 QB 699 at 726; [1964] 3 All ER 30 at 38 CA; Coal Cliff Collieries Pty Ltd v Sijehama Pty Ltd (1991) 28 NSWLR 1 at 38. In particular, the court will assume that the usual covenants are to be included. As to what standard moneylender’s covenants are not ‘usual covenants’ see Morgan v Cambridge Acceptance Pty Ltd [1966] 2 NSWR 556 at 560-1. As to specific performance by a mortgagee to perfect its security, see Browne v London Necropolis and National Mausoleum Co (1857) 6 WR 188 and 16.2.

Equitable charges distinguished from equitable mortgages 1.42 An equitable charge is created when real or personal property is expressly or constructively made liable, or specially appropriated, to the discharge of a debt or some other obligation. It creates an equitable interest and confers on the chargee a right of realisation by judicial process. Equitable charges differ from equitable mortgages. Sykes and Walker, p 197, say that the essential theoretical difference is that an equitable mortgagee takes some equitable rights of property whereas an equitable charge is a pure hypothecation. The practical difference is that the equitable mortgagee may foreclose, but the chargee merely has the remedy of judicial sale. See Matthews v Goodday (1861) 31 LJCh 282; Swiss Bank Corp v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1982] AC 584 at 595 per Buckley LJ (citing the 9th English edition of this work); and United Travel Agencies Pty Ltd v Cain (1990) 20 NSWLR 566. Equitable liens are akin to equitable charges. As to equitable liens see 2.22–2.32. An equitable chargee is sometimes said to have a proprietary interest in the asset charged though less than the full proprietary interest of a mortgagee. An equitable charge has been said to involve a deduction from the ownership of the debtor: Re Price (1931) 26 Tas LR 158 at 160, adopted in Waitomo Wools (NZ) Ltd v Nelsons (NZ) Ltd [1974] 1 NZLR 484 at 490 and in Young v

Matthew Hall Mechanical & Electrical Engineers Pty Ltd (1988) 13 ACLR 399 at 403. See 2.2.

H. Collateral Security Additional security 1.43 Collateral or additional security may be given by the principal mortgagor personally or by a third party. The most common example of the first type of collateral security is a mortgage of a life insurance policy by the principal mortgagor, which is additional to and is to secure the same debt as that secured by the principal mortgage: see 7.13. Examples of the second type of collateral security are a guarantee by a third party for the repayment of the principal mortgage debt, and a mortgage of land or other property by a third party to secure either a principal debt or the liability under a guarantee: see, Re Wallis & Simmonds (Builders) Ltd [1974] 1 All ER 561; [1974] 1 WLR 391. Where stamp duty is relevant there may be questions as to which of two or more documents is the primary security and which is collateral: see, Stardawn Investments Pty Ltd v Comptroller of Stamps (Vic) (1983) 15 ATR 180. A collateral mortgage is not necessarily subordinate to or of lesser importance than another security, it merely impinges upon or is related to it: David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 175 CLR 353 at 365 and see Re Athill (1880) 16 Ch D 211 at 222-3. [page 40] In England, because of amendments to the Statute of Frauds, there has been debate whether a deposit of deeds by a third party to secure a borrower’s overdraft facility is an equitable mortgage or a guarantee: see Deutsche Bank (Asia) AG v Ibrahim (Financial Times, 13 December 1991 and 15 January 1992) and Baughen [1992] Conv 330. The advantage of taking additional real security from a third party to secure the principal debt is that in the event of the principal mortgagor’s bankruptcy, collateral security need not go in reduction of proof: see 23.8.

For an example of a collateral security given in breach of duty by one joint venturer see Brian Pty Ltd v United Dominions Corp Ltd [1983] 1 NSWLR 490, and on appeal United Dominions Corp Ltd v Brian Pty Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 1. Especially since the decision of the High Court in Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447, great care must be taken when obtaining a collateral mortgage from a third party to ensure that the third party has no doubt at all that the mortgage, for which the third party may not be receiving any material advantage, is fully understood by the person giving it. Where the principal mortgage is discharged, the mortgagor is entitled to a discharge of all collateral mortgages: Porter v Associated Securities Ltd (1976) 1 BPR 9279 and see Hall v Heward (1886) 32 Ch D 430.

I. Where mortgage situated Generally 1.44 As a general rule, any interest in or over land must be considered as having its situs where the land is: Haque v Haque (No 2) (1965) 114 CLR 98 at 136. However, for purposes of succession, (including death duty) often a mortgage over land is considered to be located where the debt is located rather than where the land over which the security is held is situated: Re O’Neill [1922] NZLR 468 and Haque’s case. English law takes a different course: see Re Hoyles [1911] 1 Ch 179. As a mortgage is almost invariably a specialty debt, then according to general principle it should be situate where the mortgage deed happens to be at the relevant time. If the mortgage is over Torrens system land and is registered, the mortgage debt may be regarded as situate in the place where the registry is: Toronto General Trust Corp v R [1919] AC 679, but query whether this is a true exception or whether the case is merely one which does not fit into the general pattern of decisions or was so decided because of peculiarities in Canadian law. The decision in Payne v R [1902] AC 552 goes the other way and treats a Torrens mortgage in the same way as a simple debt.

A debt secured by an instrument under seal has been regarded as having a corporeal existence by which its locality may be reduced to a certainty: its place is where the instrument happens to be. Hence, again with some exceptions to meet the situations referred to above, the incidence of any inheritance tax has been determined by the place of the speciality at the creditor’s death: see McCaughey v Commissioner of Stamp Duties (1945) 46 SR (NSW) 192 at 201 and cases there cited; AG v Bouwens (1838) 4 M & W 171 at 191; 150 ER 1390 at 1398; Commissioner of Stamps v Hope [1891] AC 476 at 481; Re Maudslay, Sons & Field [1900] 1 Ch 602; New York Life Insurance Co v Public Trustee [1924] 2 Ch 101; English Scottish & Australian Bank Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1932] AC 238; Re Russian Bank of Foreign Trade [1933] Ch 745 at 767; Re Russo-Asiatic Bank [1934] Ch 720 at 738; F & K Jabbour v Custodian of Israeli Property [1954] 1 All ER 145 at 152; Re Helbert Wagg & Co Ltd [1956] Ch 323; and Brown v Silvia (1984) 8 ACLR 700. There are considerable problems in applying the lex situs of the deed in 21st century conditions. What happens if the deed is in an aircraft over the Pacific Ocean at [page 41] the moment the testator dies? Probably one then applies the law with which the mortgage has the closest connection namely the place where the land over which the mortgage was granted exists, cf Ex parte Coote (1948) 49 SR (NSW) 179 at 184-5 where there is discussion of property that might have more than one situs. See also Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd v Lissenden (1987) 8 NSWLR 411 at 416-7 and Nygh, Conflict of Laws in Australia, 8th ed, LexisNexis, Australia 2010, 32.24–32.26, pp 656–7. Where the mortgage is over personal property and the situs of the deed of mortgage rule does not apply, one must consider the private international law rules governing the situation of the relevant property. Thus, for shares s 1070A(4) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) applies so that the share is deemed to be situate in the State, Territory or overseas country on whose register it appears. This was also the position under the general law, see Bassard v Smith [1925] AC 371. A judgment debt is situated where it is

recorded: AG v Bouwens (1838) 4 M&W 171 at 191: 150 ER 1390 at 1398.

Situation when mortgage is transferred 1.45 The better view is that the rule noted in 1.39 does not apply when the question to be considered is the validity of a transfer of mortgage. In this situation, the mortgage must be treated as an interest in land and the law of the situs of the land itself governs the case. Nygh’s Conflict of Laws in Australia, [32.26] takes this view as does Dicey Morris and Collins 2006 p 1122 although there are no actual authorities to support it.

Proper law of mortgage debt when foreign element 1.46 The proper law will be that chosen by the parties, expressly or by inference. Where an express choice is made, it must have some bona fide connection with the contract. An inference will be drawn from, inter alia, the form and terminology of the documents, the nature and location of the subject matter and the residence of the parties: Re Helbert Wagg & Co Ltd [1956] Ch 323 and Keiner v Keiner [1952] 1 All ER 643. The proper law of the deed is material to, inter alia, the capacity of the parties, its validity and questions of priority: see, Todd Shipyards Corp v Altema Compania Maritima SA (1972) 32 DLR (3d) 571. Questions of deductibility of tax from payments and interest made under the deed may also be affected by the proper law: see 41.3. Although any question affecting the substance of the debt is determined by the proper law of the contract, any question concerning the mode of performance falls to be determined by the law of the place of the performance: Bonython v Commonwealth [1951] AC 201 at 219. As to what is meant by ‘mode of performance’ see Goldsbrough Mort & Co Ltd v Hall [1948] VLR 145 at 152 and Nygh, Conflict of Laws in Australia, 19.20, p 380. To perfect title, a mortgage must comply with the requirements of the local law as to form and registration etc. However, even where those requirements have not been satisfied, a local court may be able to give equitable relief if the defendant is within the jurisdiction and the transaction is one which would be enforced as an equitable mortgage: Mercantile Investment & General Trust Co v River Plate Trust Loan & Agency Co [1892] 2 Ch 303;

Re The Anchor Line (Henderson Bros) Ltd [1937] Ch 483; Richard West & Partners (Inverness) Ltd v Dick [1969] 2 Ch 424; Re International Bulk Commodities Ltd [1993] Ch 77; [1993] 1 All ER 361. However, the local court will not interfere with rights which have been acquired under foreign law in the land and if a receiver is appointed by the local court the receiver will need to comply with the foreign law in order to perfect the receiver’s title: Re Maudslay, Sons & Field [1900] 1 Ch 602. Again, a security may be created in Australia (over, inter alia, assets situate overseas) of a type which is not recognised by the law of the place where some of the property actually is. Thus, a floating charge is not recognised in many overseas countries. If an [page 42] Australian company creates a floating charge over assets situate in such a country, that charge will still constitute a valid equitable security according to Australian law. See, in general, as to the proper law of the mortgage: Cripps Warburg Ltd v Cologne Investment Co Ltd [1980] Ir R 321; Re The Assunzione [1954] 1 All ER 278 and Grey v Manitoba & North Western Railway Co of Canada [1897] AC 254; see also Lord Sudeley v AG [1897] AC 11 and McCaughey v Commissioner of Stamp Duties (1945) 46 SR (NSW) 192.

Foreigners’ interests in Australian mortgages 1.47 Section 26A(2) of the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 (Cth) provides that natural persons not ordinarily resident in Australia or corporations or trusts controlled by such persons must notify the Commonwealth Treasurer of intention to enter into any agreement to acquire an interest in Australian urban land. ‘Australian urban land’ is any land in Australia not used wholly and exclusively for the business of primary production: see s 5(1). A mortgage involving an interest in land would fall within this section. However, s 12A(5) exempts acquisition of land solely as security for the purposes of a ‘moneylending agreement’. ‘Moneylending agreement’ is

defined by s 5(1) as ‘an agreement entered into in good faith in the ordinary course of carrying on a business of lending money, not being an agreement dealing with any matter unrelated to the carrying on of that business’. Thus it would appear that where the mortgagee is a foreigner other than a financier, the Act will apply. However, regulations exempt certain types of transaction. As at October 2004, acquisition of non-residential commercial property valued at less than $5 million is an exempt transaction.

J. Quasi-mortgage Quasi securities 1.48 There are a series of situations where money is lent or obligations are undertaken where the lender or obligor is comforted by the presence of an arrangement which arrangement is not security in the accepted sense. A series of quasi securities have evolved with creative use of set-off as noted in 1.50. Trusts may be used to give quasi security. Thus, a debtor may declare that it holds an asset in trust for the creditor until the debt is paid. This may create ‘an interest in property defeasible or destructible upon payment of the debt’ per Slade J in Re Bond Worth Ltd [1980] Ch 228 at 248; [1979] 3 All ER 919 at 939 and thus constitute a charge. However, as his Lordship pointed out at that page, this is inconsistent with trust as the existence of an equity of redemption is quite inconsistent with a bare trustee-beneficiary relationship. In Associated Alloys Pty Ltd v ACN 001 452 106 Pty Ltd (2000) 202 CLR 588, a buyer took goods under a retention of title clause and promised that if it onsold them, it would hold the proceeds of sale on trust for the seller. The High Court held that, as a trust, the proceeds terms was not a registrable charge. Essentially the difference between a security and what has been termed quasi security is that with security the creditor has a proprietary right rather than a mere contractual right. However, this is not an exhaustive statement and, in some cases, where there is a trust, the ‘creditor’ may have proprietary rights no matter which way the arrangement is construed. As to contractual rights and trusts, reference should also be made to

MacJordan Construction Ltd v Brookmount Erostin Ltd [1992] BCLC 350; Kingscroft Insurance Co Ltd v H S Weavers (Underwriting) Agencies Ltd [1992] TLR 415; Law Debenture Trust [page 43] Corp v Ural Caspian Oil Corp Ltd [1993] 2 All ER 355; [1993] 1 WLR 138, reversed on appeal [1995] Ch 152; [1995] 1 All ER 157 (CA). See also Ansett Australia Ground Staff Superannuation Plan Pty Ltd v Ansett Australia (2002) 174 FLR 1 (Vic SC). A banker’s right to combine accounts does not constitute a security by way of charge: Cinema Plus Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2000) 49 NSWLR 513. The English Law Reform Commission has sought to rationalise quasi securities: see ‘Registration of Security Interests’ (2002) LCCP 164. For discussion on this move see Glister, ‘ Trusts as Quasi Securities’ (2004) L1 MCLQ 460.

Romalpa clauses 1.49 Reservation of title clauses are called ‘Romalpa’ clauses because the most celebrated treatment of them is Aluminium Industrie Vaassen BV v Romalpa Aluminium Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 676. The effect of the clause is that title to goods does not pass from vendor to purchaser until a certain event happens, which may be payment in full for those goods or the total discharge of the purchaser’s indebtedness to the vendor. Romalpa clauses and their juristic nature were considered by the High Court in Associated Alloys Pty Ltd v CAN 001 452 106 Pty Ltd (2000) 202 CLR 588; 171 ALR 568: the court held that there is no charge involved in a Romalpa clause ‘security’. See also Rondo Building Services Pty Ltd v Casaron Pty Ltd [2003] 2 Qd R 558. Although under the general law it has been held that the clause does not constitute the creation of a security (Armour v Thyssen Edelstahlwerke AG [1991] 2 AC 339; Chattis Nominees Pty Ltd v Norman Ross Homeworks Pty Ltd (1992) 28 NSWLR 338 at 345) it is governed by PPSA because of s 12(2) (d) which includes as a security interest “a conditional sale agreement

(including an agreement to sell subject to retention of title)”. See Bruce Whittaker ‘Retention of Title Clauses under the PPSA’ (2010) 21 Journal of Banking and Finance Law and Practice 273.

K. Set-off Set-off generally 1.50 This work is no place to discuss the technicalities of set-off, as to which, see Wood, English and International Set-Off, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1989 and Derham on the Law of Set-Off, 4th ed, OUP, Oxford, 2010. Set-off usually becomes an issue when the mortgagee is about to take enforcement action or where accounts are being taken. These matters are considered in 1.51. Another area where set-offs arise is where the mortgage is only part of a larger transaction; see 1.52. Then there are other cases where set-offs are claimed against the mortgage debt; see 1.53.

Set-off on accounts 1.51 A claim of set-off by a mortgagor will rarely entitle him to delay the mortgagee from enforcing his rights under the mortgage: Inglis v Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia (1972) 126 CLR 161; Mobil Oil Co Ltd v Rawlinson (1981) 43 P & CR 221; Australia & New Zealand Bank v Squires (SC (NSW), Lusher J, 23 August 1982; CA, 6 December 1982, unreported); Ashley Guarantee plc v Zacaria [1993] 1 WLR 62; [1993] 1 All ER 254 (CA); see also Pettat v Ellis (1804) 9 Ves 563; 32 ER 721; Atterbury v Jarvie (1857) 2 H & N 113; 157 ER 47; and see 3.13 and 19.11. However, the person claiming a set-off may obtain time if a substitute security is offered: Booth v Booth (1742) 2 Atk 343; 26 ER 609; Duncombe v Greenacre (1860) 28 Beav 472; 54 ER 447; Altarama Ltd v Camp (1980) 5 ACLR 513. There have been cases where a mortgagor has been permitted to raise a matter of set-off unconditionally. This may occur where the breach of which the mortgagee [page 44]

is accused has contributed to the non-payment by the mortgagor. Thus in Campbell v Canadian Co-operative Investment Co (1907) 5 WWR 153 the mortgagor claimed that the mortgagee had breached his covenant to insure the mortgaged premises, a hotel, which had burnt down, rendering the mortgagor unable to pay what was due under the mortgage. In Popular Homes Ltd v Circuit Developments Ltd [1979] 2 NZLR 642, a mortgagor was permitted to raise by way of set-off a claim that the mortgagee had breached a covenant to lend further money which the mortgagor expected to receive to complete a building on the mortgaged land, thus rendering it unable to pay the mortgage debt. Even claims that a mortgagee has caused damage while in possession may be set off against a claim for the mortgage debt: Imperial Bank of Canada v G M Annable Co [1925] 1 DLR 946; General Credits (Finance) Pty Ltd v Stoyakovich [1975] Qd R 352 and see also Sidu v Ba’li (1892) 17 Indian LR 33 (Bom), noted in Wood, p 132. Where the mortgagee goes into possession, a claim by the mortgagor’s tenant to set off damages allegedly payable by the mortgagor may not avail against the mortgagee: Reeves v Pope [1914] 2 KB 284; Citibank Pty Ltd v Simon Fredericks Pty Ltd [1993] 2 VR 168 and see Derham (1994) 68 ALJ 331 at 349-51. However, in Queensland, it has been held that the principle in Reeves v Pope does not apply to Torrens mortgages: Re Partnership Pacific Securities Ltd [1992] ACL 295 Qld 5, noted (1994) 68 ALJ 351 and see (1992) 3 JBFLP 284. Derham’s view is that this result might apply in other states as well.

Transactional set-off 1.52 It not infrequently occurs that a mortgage is given as part of a trading arrangement. Thus, a buyer is given credit on furnishing security for the amount of the trading debt. In such a case, the debt covered by the security will be calculated taking account of set-offs in the trading accounts: Bow McLachlan & Co v Ship Camosun [1909] AC 597 at 612; Newman v Cook [1963] VR 659; Popular Homes Ltd v Circuit Developments Ltd [1979] 2 NZLR 642; Altarama Ltd v Camp (1980) 5 ACLR 513 at 520; and see Samuel Keller (Holdings) Ltd v Martins Bank Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 43. In Piggott v Williams (1821) 6 Madd 95; 56 ER 1027, a client granted a

solicitor a mortgage to secure costs. A set-off was allowed to be raised that the solicitor’s negligence in the matter had caused loss; see also Parker v Jackson [1936] 2 All ER 281. Note that if there are separate transactions, one of loan and the other in commerce, such as where the mortgagee loans money so that the mortgagor will be able to trade with him, set-off on the trading account will have no relevance to the mortgage debt. However, courts are not often persuaded that there are not separate transactions so that set-off will be applicable. See, generally, Bow McLahlan, supra, Newman v Cook [1965] VR 659 at 575-6, Samuel Keller (Holdings) Ltd v Martins Bank Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 43 at 51; [1970] 3 All ER 950 at 953; Altarama Ltd v Camp (1980) 5 ACLR 513 at 520; and Derham, [4.128] 129 ff. Where the mortgagee sells the mortgaged property, the buyer may be able to raise a set-off against the purchase price of some other debt. Thus in Hudson v Granger (1821) 5 B & Ald 27; 106 ER 1103 the mortgagee sold the mortgaged goods to a buyer to whom he owed money. On the mortgagee’s bankruptcy, a set-off was allowed. In Union Bank of Australia v Waterman (1894) 12 NZLR 673, the plaintiffs sued the purchaser of a boat for the balance of the purchase price. The first plaintiff bank was owed £412 and the second plaintiff mortgagor was owed £488. The buyer had a claim of £122 against the mortgagor which he was able to set off. In TSB Bank plc v Platts [1998] 2 BCLC 1, a set-off was allowed where the bank had failed to obtain the market price for the mortgaged property. It was held that the court was entitled to determine the maximum [page 45] possible value of the mortgagor’s counter-claim and deduct it from the mortgage debt; with the possibility of a bankruptcy order if the set-off was insufficient.

Miscellaneous examples of set-off 1.53 Set-off may arise in many cases. In Hiley v The Peoples Prudential Assurance Co Ltd (1938) 60 CLR 468, a policyholder had borrowed from the

defendant assurance company which had taken an assignment by way of security of his life policy. The assurance company had then assigned the policy to its bank by way of security. After the commencement of the winding up of the assurance company, the bank reassigned the policy. The High Court held, distinguishing Re City Life Assurance Co Ltd; Stephenson’s case [1926] Ch 191 at 214, that the policyholder could set off against the mortgage debt a claim for damages for repudiating the policy. Where a mortgaged property is sold by the mortgagee, the surplus is held for the mortgagor or second mortgagee (see 20.26) and thus is not available to satisfy unsecured debts owed by the mortgagor to the mortgagee: Talbot v Frere (1878) 9 Ch D 568 at 573; Lloyds Bank NZA Ltd v National Safety Council of Australia Victorian Division (1993) 115 ALR 93 at 98 and 102. There have been attempts to get round this rule. For a time, it was thought that a mortgagee had a right of retention, but this was exploded by Talbot v Frere, above, and Re Gregson (1887) 36 Ch D 227; see also Derham, 10.39, p 458. Indeed there is support for the opposing view: see Re H E Thorne & Son Ltd [1914] 2 Ch 438, where a set-off was allowed in such a situation. Other examples are given in Wood at pp 556–1. The better view is that Thorne’s case was wrongly decided or that it has been overtaken by the statutory trust provisions of the surplus contained in s 112(4) of the NSW Act and s 105 of the Victorian Act: see Derham, 10.43, p 459.

Set-off as quasi security 1.54 In a series of essays published as Using Set-Off as Security, Neale (ed), IBA, London, 1990, the essayists discuss three common banking transactions which employ set-off as a means of taking security. The first is the ‘washable’ loan in which a major shareholder of a foreign company, S, wishes to finance investment by a company, C, without making a direct investment. S thus approaches the bank, B, to lend money to C with S depositing the same sum with B. All intend that any problem with the loan from B to C will be dealt with by a right of set-off by B against S. The second is the syndicated loan whereby a lending bank lays off part of a risk by taking a deposit from participating banks on terms that its liability is limited to payment of the appropriate part of the principal and interest received from the principal borrower. Here the lending bank has a form of

set-off against a liability in respect of the deposit. The third is cash cover whereby cash is deposited to provided against contingent liabilities. However, set-off is not security in the strict sense. As Hapgood points out in the same volume at p 37: A right of set-off is not per se security in the strict sense. The essential difference between setoff and security is that set-off is a procedure by which a debtor reduces or extinguishes his own liability by the application of property to which he is beneficially entitled (his claim against the other party); whereas the realisation of security is a process by which a creditor reduces or extinguishes the secured liability by the application of property in which the creditor has the limited interest of a mortgagee or chargee. However set-off and security are not wholly unrelated in that set-off is a method by which a charge can be realized.

[page 46] Hapgood further opines at p 38 that creating a quasi security by way of setoff would not breach a negative pledge.

L. Miscellaneous Mortgage Brokers and Originators 1.55 It has become the custom in parts of Australia in the last decade for lenders to appoint persons called mortgage managers to manage their lending and to market their facility by appointing people called mortgage originators. Sometimes these mortgage originators appoint sub-originators. A person trading as an originator may have accepted appointment from a number of lenders. Ordinarily an originator will be considered to be the agent of the lender. A person seeking finance will often not approach the lender, but instead consult a mortgage broker. Such a broker is the agent of the borrower. The broker will approach an originator with a proposal. The originator will then put the application for finance to one or several mortgage managers. If a mortgage manager likes a proposal, it will issue an offer for finance which

the potential borrower may accept. Usually the loan is under what is called the Lo-Doc or low documentary scheme. (sometimes called ‘sub-prime’). If the offer is accepted, the mortgage manager refers matter to a solicitor who has been appointed by the lender to vet the application. Often such solicitors have obtained the work by a tender process which has meant that the solicitor might be in a provincial town in a State other than the State where the land is situate. Although the various agents are on commission, there is usually an indemnity clause in favour of the lender to cover it if things go wrong. Unfortunately, the brokers and originators are often single purpose two dollar companies. These arrangements have facilitated fraud in many cases because of fraudulent conduct by employees of the originator or the broker particularly in overstating the income of the borrower or not ensuring that the mortgage is not the subject of forgery. A v B1 (no 2) (2012) 271 FLR 122 (Edelman J WA Sup Ct) contains a detailed discussion of the liabilities of the various actors in this sort of chain of command. See also Vella v Permanent Mortgages Pty Ltd (2008) 13 BPR 25,343 (on appeal to the High Court Hunt & Hunt Lawyers v Mitchell Morgan Nominees Pty Ltd (2013) 247 CLR 613; 296 ALR 3 on the liability of the solicitors involved to contribute to the lender’s loss) and Tonto Home Loans Australia Pty Ltd v Tavares (2011) 15 BPR 29,699 (CA).

Reverse Mortgages 1.56 In recent years, use has been made of the reverse mortgage, which is said to be particularly attractive to elderly persons as it permits them to obtain funds on the security of their realty, without having to repay the capital until after their demise. Typically, the so-called ‘reverse mortgage’ involves an elderly person mortgaging their otherwise unencumbered home to gain spending money, by means of a loan under which the interest will be capitalised and the principal and interest only paid on his or her death. Care must be taken in such transactions to ensure that the transaction cannot be attacked under principles of undue influence or the like. As pointed out by Pascoe in (2007) 15 APLR 194, there are various hidden dangers in a person taking out a reverse mortgage. These include the need to

watch the small print. Sometimes, the capital is not only repayable after death, but also if the house is sold (and it may be necessary to sell it for the elderly owner to move into a retirement village) or if some minor covenant in the mortgage is breached. Such events of default [page 47] may also render void any ‘no negative equity guarantee’ which would otherwise prevent the capitalisation of the secured debt to an amount in excess of the realisable value of the property, with the borrower personally liable for any shortfall.

New types of security 1.57 The finance industry is constantly thinking up new ways to raise money on security. Methods which were almost unthinkable some years ago are now commonplace: see, for example, the comments on subordinated debt in Re Data Homes Pty Ltd [1971] 1 NSWLR 338 (affirmed [1972] 2 NSWLR 22). Negative pledge is another recent creation: see 2.5. ‘Securitisation’ is a recently created word. It comprehends a method of financing whereby the income flowing from a number of assets is pooled and packaged. Thus the income from a series of coal mines may be packaged and marketed as ‘Consolidated Coal Security’: see note (1994) 68 ALJ 322-3. Time alone will tell what new devices are successfully used. The basic rules which will govern them will, however, be the same rules that are discussed in this work that govern the traditional forms of financing.

Phantom mortgages 1.58 A mortgage purporting to secure a loan which in fact was never made is a nullity: Re GM Industries Pty Ltd [1980] ACLC 40-665; see also Jacobson v Wilkins (1919) 48 DLR 51 at 57. An assignment of such a mortgage conveys nothing; see 4.32, 14.2. A mortgage to secure $x plus further advances as requested by the mortgagor did not secure advances made for the mortgagor’s benefit which

he did not actually request: Knight v New England Credit Union Ltd (1992) 5 BPR 11,744. A mortgage purportedly granted by a company that has been deregistered confers no interest in the relevant land in the ‘mortgagee’, much less any indefeasible title: see Australia and New Zealand Banking Group v Barns (1994) 6 BPR 13,739; (1994) 13 ACSR 592; [1995] ANZ ConvR 123. Some cases come under this category because instead of naming the amount which the mortgage secures, there is some meaningless reference to another document which in fact does not elucidate the matter. Examples are Re Regis Towers Real Estate Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 452: 12 BPR 23,957 and Vouzas v Sibonna Nominees Pty Ltd [2011] VSC 261: [2011] V ConvR 54-795. There have been a number of recent considerations as to when a document may be disregarded as a sham. These are collected by Tilley ((2005) 79 ALJ 518). Where rights are purportedly conferred upon a third party by a document alleged to be a sham, there must a common intention that the documents are a sham; the unexpressed intentions of the shammer are insufficient to affect the person who was deceived: see per Diplock LJ in Snook v London and West Riding Investments Pty Ltd [1967] 2 QB 786 at 802; [1967] 1 All ER 518 at 528. The decision has been applied in England by Rimer J in Shalsom v Russo [2003] TLR 506, more fully reported in [2003] WTLR 1165 (Wills and Trusts Law Reports (UK)), by the Royal Court of Jersey in Abacus (CI) Ltd v Sheikh Fahad (the ‘Esteem case’) (13 June 2003, seemingly unreported), and also by the bailiff in Jersey in MacKinnon v The Regent Trust Company Ltd (6 December 2004, unreported). [page 48]

Perpetuities 1.59 Neither the modern rule against perpetuities nor its statutory replacements apply to mortgages: Knightsbridge Estates Trust v Byrne [1938]

Ch 741 at 757–63; [1939] Ch 441 at 463–4 (CA); [1940] AC 613 at 625 (HL).

Mortgages and equities 1.60 It must always be borne in mind that a considerable amount of the law governing mortgages has been generated from equitable principles and will not be found in any statute. Being equitable principles, these rules are subject to fine tuning and adjustment in order to make them compatible with modern commercial life. Sometimes even relatively basic principles such as the rule restricting mortgages taking collateral advantages may be up for review: see Westfield Holdings Ltd v Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd (1992) 32 NSWLR 194; see also 32.11–32.16. Sometimes a rule will be found partially in a statute and partially in an equitable doctrine. Thus, s 92 of the NSW Act gives some protection to a defaulting mortgagor where the mortgagee has continued to accept interest: see 32.37. This must be read in conjunction with the six months rule, a rule of equity that a mortgagor who had made default in the repayment of principal could not pay out the mortgage without warning, but had to give six months’ notice or pay six months’ interest: Cromwell Property Investment Co Ltd v Western & Toovey [1934] Ch 322 and see 32.36–32.38. Care must be taken with the tags that are sometimes used in connection with equitable doctrines. Thus the word ‘marshalling’ basically means the ranking or ordering of several estates or parcels of land for the satisfaction of a judgment or mortgage, but the word is used with four different shades of meaning. First, the term is used to describe the doctrine that a mortgagee with the right to only one fund of a mortgagor may protect himself as against a mortgagee with access to two funds of that mortgagor: see 30.9ff. Second, it describes the right of a surety to have access to the principal’s property to make good what the surety has paid: Heyman v Dubois (1871) LR 13 Eq 158; Finance Corp of Australia Ltd v Bentley (1991) 5 BPR 11,833 at 11,842-3. Third, it is used for the inverse order rule that if a large parcel of land is mortgaged and the mortgagor sells part to several purchasers, the mortgagee should look first to the land retained by the mortgagor and then to that onsold in inverse order to the date of sale. There is no modern Australian case on this rule which stems from Harbert’s Case (1584) 3 Co Rep 11b; 76 ER 647, and see Gribble v Stearman & Kaplan Inc 239 A (2d) 573 (1968) and Nelson

and Whitman, Real Estate Finance Law, 2nd ed, West, Minnesota, 1981, pp 728 ff. The best exposition of the rule may be found in the annotations to Maurer v Arab Petroleum Corp (1940) 131 AmLR 1 at 4-114; see also Hartley v O’Flaherty (1833) Lloyd & Goold (temp Plunket) 216; Clark v Bogart (1880) 27 Grant Ch 450; Fraser v Nagle (1888) 16 OR 241. Fourth, it covers analogous equitable principles to any of the above: Finance Corp of Australia v Bentley, above, at 11,834. See, generally, Sarge Pty Ltd v Cazihaven Homes Pty Ltd (1994) 34 NSWLR 658.

[page 49]

Chapter 2

Charges and Liens Scheme of chapter A. Equitable Charges Definition Creation Aspects of creation of charges Negative pledge Charges over personalty Equitable charges on realty Remedies of chargee B. Equitable Liens Equitable liens generally Vendor’s lien Contracts for the sale of land Vendor’s lien over chattels Extent of vendor’s lien Liens and invalid mortgages Purchaser’s lien Liens for expenditure on another’s property Salvage Other equitable liens

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18

Extinction of equitable liens C. Common Law Liens Liens generally Artificers’ liens Improvement Delivered to the artificer Work done with owner’s authority Work completely performed Extent of lien Priority of lien over mortgagee Accountants’ liens Insurers’ liens Liens over cash Assignment of lien Loss of lien D. Solicitors’ Liens Solicitors’ liens

2.19 2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.24 2.25 2.26 2.27 2.28 2.29 2.30 2.31 2.32 2.33

[page 50]

Historical development Solicitor’s lien over documents etc Lien limited to professional matter Loss or displacement of solicitor’s lien Substitute security Persons affected by solicitor’s lien Lien only to extent of client’s interest Mortgagee’s solicitor Solicitor for both parties

2.34 2.35 2.36 2.37 2.38 2.39 2.40 2.41 2.42

Documents required in litigation Production in a stranger’s litigation Discharge of lien to enable production Deeds belonging to a trust Production in winding up Solicitor’s lien over fruits of litigation Solicitor’s right to attach funds Examples Enforcement of the lien E. Liquidators’ Liens Liquidators’ liens

2.43 2.44 2.45 2.46 2.47 2.48 2.49 2.50 2.51 2.52

Scheme of chapter 2.1 As Browne, Ashburner’s Principles of Equity 2nd ed, Butterworths, London, 1933, points out at p 249, there is virtually no distinction between an equitable lien and an equitable charge, the former term being used when the equitable security arises otherwise than under an express contract. Webster, Ashburner’s Concise Treatise on Mortgages, Pledges and Liens, 2nd ed, Butterworths, London, 1911, p 107, makes the same point. However, the distinction is commonly made, and it is appropriate to deal with this topic by first considering charges (other than charges under statute or judgments which are considered in Chapter 7) and then various types of liens.

A. Equitable Charges Definition 2.2 A charge is a security whereby real or personal property is appropriated for the discharge of a debt or other obligation, but which does not pass either an absolute or a special property in the subject of the security to the creditor, nor any right of possession, but only a right of realisation by judicial process in case of non-payment of the debt: see Stainbank v Fenning (1851) 11 CB

51; 138 ER 389 and Stainbank v Shepard (1853) 13 CB 418; 138 ER 1262. This definition was cited with approval by Buckley LJ in Swiss Bank Corp v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1982] AC 584 at 595; [1980] 2 All ER 419 at 425; and see also Carreras Rothmans Ltd v Freeman Mathews Treasure Ltd [1985] Ch 207 at 227; [1985] 1 All ER 155 at 169 and United Travel Agencies Pty Ltd v Cain (1990) 20 NSWLR 566. With possible statutory exceptions, charges are enforceable only in equity. Equitable charges arise out of agreement between the parties thereto and in that respect differ from statutory charges (as to which see Chapter 7) and equitable liens, though the word ‘lien’ is often used to include not only liens arising by operation of law, but also charges or hypothecations arising out of contract. [page 51] The distinction between lien and charge is especially important for the purpose of registration under the Corporations Act: see Re Wallis & Simmonds (Builders) Ltd [1974] 1 All ER 561; [1974] 1 WLR 391; see also Chapter 11. A charge, though expressed to be an agreement for a lien, does not confer an actual lien, which is a right given by law. In such cases the rights of the parties are limited by the terms of the express contract (Gladstone v Birley (1817) 2 Mer 401 at 404; 35 ER 993 at 994; Re Leith’s Estate (1866) LR 1 PC 296 at 305); but, nevertheless, subject to the terms of the contract by which such an agreement is effected, and the special rights thereby created, the rights correspond with such as arise under actual liens. The express stipulation in agreement for a security excludes a lien and limits the rights by the extent of the express contract — expressum facit cessare tacitum.

Creation 2.3

An ordinary charge may be created in either of the following ways:

1. by a charge or direction in a settlement, will, or other instrument, whereby real or personal property is expressly or constructively made liable or specifically appropriated to the discharge of a debt, portion, legacy, or

other burden, or declared to be subjected to a charge for securing the same; no debt is implied, but a right of realisation by judicial process is conferred; or 2. by the appropriation to the discharge of a debt of specific things in action or chattels, which either are, at the time of appropriation, or may or will thereafter be in the hands of a third person: see Swiss Bank Corp v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1982] AC 584 at 594-596; [1980] 2 All ER 419 at 426. For a trust by way of securities see Re Bond Worth Ltd [1980] Ch 228 at 250; [1979] 3 All ER 919 at 940, and compare Carreras Rothmans Ltd v Freeman Mathews Treasure Ltd [1985] Ch 207 at 227; [1985] 1 All ER 155 at 169. In Jackson v Richards [2005] NSWSC 630; (2005) 12 BPR 23,071 at 23,094 [18] White J said on the basis of Rodick v Gandell (1852) 1 De G M & G 763 at 777, 778; 42 ER 749 at 754: An agreement between a debtor and his creditor that the debt owing shall be paid out of a specific fund coming to the debtor will create a valid equitable charge upon the fund and operate as an equitable assignment of it. However, for this principle to apply, there must be a specific fund from which the debt owing is to be paid.

His Honour cited the Swiss Bank case at AC 595, All ER 426 in support of the latter statement. No special form is required to create a charge: Cradock v Scottish Provident Institution (1893) 69 LT 380; affirmed 70 LT 718. As to the requirements of provisions such as s 53(1) of the Victorian Act with respect to real property, see Kinane v Mackie-Conteh [2004] 19 EG 164 (CS). The court itself may create an equitable charge in appropriate circumstances, see 2.13. The mere fact that another person may have a power of sale over property or the right to retain possession of property does not of itself indicate a charge: Great Eastern Railway Co v Lord’s Trustee [1909] AC 109; Waitomo Wools (NZ) Ltd v Nelsons (NZ) Ltd [1974] 1 NZLR 484; Re Trendent Industries Pty Ltd (1983) 8 ACLR 115; Seka Pty Ltd v Fabric Dyeworks (Aust) Pty Ltd (1991) 4 ACSR 455 and see the argument in Re Cosslett (Contractors) Ltd [1998] Ch 495 at 499. With Torrens land, an agreement that the creditor may lodge a caveat will

ordinarily create a charge, Troncone v Aliperti (1994) 6 BPR 13,291: see, however, Redglove Projects Pty Ltd v Ngunnawal Local Aboriginal Land Council (2004) 12 BPR 22,319. [page 52]

Aspects of creation of charges 2.4 An agreement to charge property which at the date of the agreement has been sold will bind the corresponding interest in the purchase money: Re Selby; Ex parte Rogers (1856) 8 De GM & G 271; 44 ER 394, and see also Byrne v Allied Irish Banks Ltd [1978] IR 446. On the other hand, on the death of the chargor, the charge will only affect the property of which he died possessed, and not such as did not belong to him at his death, whether he had it at the date of the obligation or acquired it afterwards. The property over which the charge exists must be clear. This is because the property must be appropriated to meet the charge: see, for example, Brown, Shipley & Co v Kough (1885) 29 Ch D 848; see also Chapter 7. Notwithstanding this rule, a charge may survive if it is over such land as a developer should still own when a request for a security is made (see Williams v Burlington Investments Ltd (1977) 121 Sol Jo 424) or over such living as the rector of X might exchange for his present living: Metcalfe v Archbishop of York (1836) 6 Sim 224; 58 ER 577; affirmed (1836) 1 My & Cr 547; 40 ER 547. Just as a mortgage of all a mortgagor’s ‘real and personal property whatsoever and wheresoever’ may be supported if it is possible at the time when the charge is sought to be enforced to identify the property mortgaged (see 1.34), so the same seems to apply to a charge. However, it is suggested there must be a limit and that a charge over all the real and personal property over which the chargor owns or may hereafter acquire may be too wide. A floating charge escapes this problem because there is a two-stage process to the appropriation of assets to the charge, and it is only upon crystallisation of the charge that the assets then in existence become appropriated to it: Biggerstaff v Rowatt’s Wharf Ltd [1896] 2 Ch 93 at 106; see 8.10–8.12. An agreement that a person may place a caveat on another’s title amounts

to an equitable charge: Murphy v Wright (1992) 5 BPR 11,734; Esanda Finance Corp Ltd v Leserv (No 4) Pty Ltd [1992] ACL 295 Qld 8; Troncone v Aliperti (1994) 6 BPR 13,291.

Negative pledge 2.5 In recent years it has become a common practice for a creditor to obtain from a debtor a promise that the debtor will not charge an asset in favour of any other person. This situation is known as ‘negative pledge’. It is the absence of any immediate appropriation which prevents a negative pledge clause from creating any security interest, at least until default: Kelly v Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co (1935) 11 F Supp 497; Pullen v Abalcheck Pty Ltd (1990) 20 NSWLR 732. As to whether such a clause can create a charge upon default, Goode, Legal Problems of Credit and Security, 4th ed, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2008, pp 52–59 discusses the operation of negative pledges in different circumstances. He notes that there is little English caselaw, but concludes that the negative pledge is not properly included within the category ‘security’ and the remedies to protect and enforce it are so weak. Gabriel, Legal Aspects of Syndicated Loans, Butterworths, London, 1986, pp 86–90, takes the opposite view. See also Stone (1991) NZLJ 364 at 365, who suggests that cases such as Re Jackson & Bassford [1906] 2 Ch 467 at 479 and Re Love; Francis v Gregory Love & Co [1916] 1 Ch 203 at 211 support Gabriel’s view. A negative pledge may be enforced by obtaining an injunction to prevent the mortgagor from breaching a negative covenant: Pullen v Abalcheck Pty Ltd (1990) 20 NSWLR 732 at 735 and see Bond Brewing Holdings Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd (1990) 1 ACSR 445 at 461. There would appear to be no objection to a negative pledge deed providing that, if certain events happen, the creditor might appoint a receiver: see Stone (1991) [page 53] NZLJ 312, where it is said that such a result follows from the analysis in Gaskell v Gosling [1896] 1 QB 669. There is a general judicial unwillingness

to permit negative pledges to become the vehicle for the creation of equitable mortgages: Nelson and Whitman, Real Estate Finance Law, 2nd ed, West, Minnesota, 1985, s 338, p 139; and see Brown v San Luis Obispo National Bank 462 F (2d) 129 (9th Cir) (1972); Chase Manhattan Bank v Gems-ByGordon 649F (2d) 710 (9th Cir) (1981). A creditor who misses out on obtaining an injunction is left with the remedy of an action in debt. This is cold comfort if the debtor is insolvent. Stone (1990) NZLJ 411 suggests that, in appropriate circumstances, the creditor may be able to sue a third party for the tort of interfering with contractual relations if that party has taken a charge over the relevant assets with knowledge of the negative pledge.

Charges over personalty 2.6 Charges over personalty are regulated by legislation principally by the PPSA which repealed and displaced most previous legislation of the Commonwealth and States. The Act and its operation is considered in Chapter 5. Where the charge is not in respect of a personal chattel, such as a charge of a chose in action, the charge is often effected by an assignment of the property and will then be treated as an equitable mortgage. Moreover a mere charge on a fund or debt operates as a partial equitable assignment: Durham Bros v Robertson [1898] 1 QB 765 at 769 and see Swiss Bank Corp v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1982] AC 584. Compare Gough, Company Charges, 2nd ed, Butterworths, London, 1996, p 215. This is fully discussed in Chapter 6. However, while an absolute assignment of existing property is effectual though voluntary, an equitable assignment which merely gives a charge on property requires valuable consideration to support it (Re Earl of Lucan; Hardinge v Cohen (1890) 45 Ch D 470); though see Sykes and Walker p 773, which suggests that this statement is wrong and that Re Lucan is a ‘very dubious and ambiguous authority’. The fund upon which the charge operates must be clear: Brown, Shipley & Co v Kough (1885) 29 Ch D 848, and see 2.4 and 6.10. Charges over the property of corporations are considered in detail in Chapter 8.

Equitable charges on realty 2.7 The assimilation of mortgages and charges referred to in 1.9 is illustrated by the older cases. Cousins, The Law of Mortgages, 2nd ed, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2001 (the successor to Waldock on Mortgages), suggests that even an express contract to create a charge has been held to be a contract to make a mortgage and the case to be within the rules of equitable mortgage: see too Ex parte Wills (1790) 1 Ves 162; 30 ER 281; Montague v Earl of Sandwich (1886) 32 Ch D 525 and Re Roberts (1982) 84 FLR 88. It is also suggested that where a security is intended and the land charged is specified, provided that the instrument by which the charge is effected is not a will (Re Owen [1894] 3 Ch 220), or a voluntary settlement (Balfe v Lord (1842) 2 Dr & War 480; Re Lloyd [1903] 1 Ch 385), an equitable mortgage will be created: Cradock v Scottish Provident Institution [1893] 69 LT 380; affirmed 70 LT 718; Montague v Earl of Sandwich (1886) 32 Ch D 525; Re Roberts (1982) 84 FLR 88 and Avco Financial Services Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1989) 17 NSWLR 679. There is a fundamental difference in the nature of an equitable charge and an equitable mortgage (see, for example, 1.4 and 2.2), and the remedies available to the equitable mortgagee are more extensive than those available to the equitable chargee. [page 54] In particular, an equitable chargee does not have the remedy of foreclosure: see 2.8. Although some of the older cases seem to overlook this vital distinction (see, for example, Garfitt v Allen (1888) 37 Ch D 48), the distinction between the equitable charge and equitable mortgage has been clearly drawn in more recent cases such as Swiss Bank Corp v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1982] AC 584 at 594-7; [1980] 2 All ER 419 at 426 and Ladup Ltd v Williams & Glyn’s Bank plc [1985] 2 All ER 577. One should approach the older cases with caution in the light of this; see also the discussion in Sykes and Walker, pp 195–6. Not even a charge will be created where no particular land is mentioned in the agreement; or where the agreement is only for a personal security, with

power to call for a real security. (As to the contrast between a mere contract and a security interest see, for example, Williams v Burlington Investments Ltd (1977) 121 Sol Jo 424.) Again, not even a charge will be created where it otherwise appears to be intended to rely upon the agreement and not any security (see, for example, Collins v Plumber (1709) 1 P Wms 104; 24 ER 313; Berrington v Evans (1839) 3 Y & C Ex 384; 160 ER 751); nor where the agreement is not based on valuable consideration: Re Earl of Lucan (1890) 45 Ch D 470. The charge must be a present charge of specified property either already in the chargor’s possession or such as he or she may afterwards acquire or derive from a specified source: see 2.4 and Metcalfe v Archbishop of York (1836) 6 Sim 224; 58 ER 577; affirmed (1836) 1 My & Cr 547; 40 ER 547; Buller v Plunkett (1860) 1 John & H 441; 70 ER 819 and Murphy v Wright (1992) 5 BPR 11,734. As to the distinction between a charge over land and a charge over the proceeds of sale see Re Pauly (1994) 115 FLR 473. An agreement for a future charge is not enforceable if it is voluntary (Re Earl of Lucan, above), but if it is given for value, the charge will attach to the chargor’s land at the time agreed: Wellesley v Wellesley (1839) 4 My & Cr 561; 41 ER 213. As to the requirements of provisions such as s 53(1) of the Victorian Act, see Kinane v Mackie-Conteh [2004] 19 EG 164 (CS).

Remedies of chargee 2.8 The principal remedies of the chargee are sale and the appointment of a receiver. If the charge is by deed the chargee will have statutory powers in this respect. (See s 101 of the English Act, s 109 of the NSW Act and other corresponding sections referred to in the introduction to this work.) Where the charge is not by deed the chargee must apply to the court for an order for sale: Tennant v Trenchard (1869) 4 Ch App 537 at 542. (See the further discussion in Chapter 20.) Where shares are charged, restrictions on the transfer of the shares may prevent sale: Dalston Development Pty Ltd v Dean [1967] WAR 176. It may be necessary to appoint an independent person to conduct the sale: Phillips v Hogg [2001] QSC 390.

Alternatively, the application must be for the appointment of a receiver (see 19.14), but a mere equitable chargee is not entitled to possession (Garfitt v Allen (1887) 34 Ch D 48 at 50 and 19.14), nor foreclosure: Tennant v Trenchard, above; Re Lloyd [1903] 1 Ch 385 at 404 and United Travel Agencies Pty Ltd v Cain (1990) 20 NSWLR 566. As a strict matter of law there should be no stay imposed on the right of the mortgagee to exercise its powers under the deed of charge in the absence of any evidence of ability to pay: French v Capple [2001] NSWSC 574. [page 55]

B. Equitable Liens Equitable liens generally 2.9 The use of the word ‘lien’ has a tendency to be misleading. A common law lien (see 2.20 ff) is based on possession and usually confers a mere right to detain. An equitable lien is not based on possession and entitles the holder to judicial sale. The nature of equitable liens was considered by the High Court in Hewett v Court (1983) 149 CLR 639. Deane J (at 663) said (omitting reference to authority): An equitable lien is a right against property which arises automatically by implication of equity to secure the discharge of an actual or potential indebtedness. Though called a lien, it is, in truth, a form of equitable charge over the subject property in that it does not depend upon possession and may, in general, be enforced in the same way as any other equitable charge, namely, by sale in pursuance of court order or, where the lien is over a fund, by an order for payment thereout. Equitable lien differs from traditional mortgage in that it does not transfer any title to the property and therefore cannot be enforced by foreclosure. While it arises by implication of some equitable doctrine applicable to the circumstances, its implication can be precluded or qualified by express or implied agreement of the parties. It can exist over land or personalty or both.

Deane J cited copious authority in connection with that statement, particularly Re Beirnstein [1925] Ch 12 at 17-18; Re Bond Worth Ltd [1980] Ch 228 at 251; pages corresponding to McGhee, Snell’s Equity, 31st ed, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2005, pp 889–91; Landowners West of England

and South Wales Land Drainage and Inclosure Co v Ashford (1880) 16 Ch D 411; Bowles v Rogers (1800) 6 Ves 95 n; 31 ER 957; Re Stucley [1906] 1 Ch 67 at 76-7, 79-80; Davies v Thomas [1900] 2 Ch 462 at 468. Deane J’s formulation has been often referred to extensively in subsequent authorities: see, Commissioner of Taxation v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1992) 36 FCR 314 at 324-5; 109 ALR 159 at 170-1; Lavery v R & I Bank of WA Ltd (SC (WA), Full Court, 7 September 1995); Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Lawrenson Light Metal Die Casting Pty Ltd (1999) 158 FLR 307 at 314; 33 ACSR 288 at 295; Re MAS Food Industries (Aust) Pty Ltd (in liq) [2000] WASC 155 per Anderson J. In Hewett v Court Gibbs CJ said at 149 CLR 645, quoting words of Isaacs J in Davies v Littlejohn (1923) 34 CLR 174 at 185, in relation to the doctrine of vendor’s lien, which Gibbs CJ said had general application, ‘Equitable lien does not depend either upon contract or upon possession. It arises by operation of law, under a doctrine of equity “as part of a scheme of equitable adjustment of mutual rights and obligations”’. In Lavery v R & I Bank of WA Ltd (SC (WA), Full Court, 7 September 1995) Malcolm CJ (with whom Franklyn and Owen JJ agreed) made it clear that the category of relationships giving rise to an equitable lien by operation of equity is not exhaustive. He exemplified the case of an intended lessee who enters land under a contract to grant a lease and expends money in repairing the premises, but the lessor fails to grant the lease. In such a case, the lessee will have an equitable lien for the recovery of the expenditure: Middleton v Magnay (1864) 2 H & M 233; 71 ER 452. As Gummow J said in (1993) 109 LQR 159 at 162: ‘The equitable lien has been somewhat a mysterious creature’. It is not limited to situations where equity would grant specific performance (see, for example, Hewett v Court (1983) 149 CLR 639 at 664-5), nor indeed is it limited to cases where the parties are in a contractual relationship. Thus a trustee has a lien over the trust property for indemnity against his liabilities: Vacuum Oil Co Pty Ltd v Wiltshire (1945) 72 CLR 319 at 335; Octavo Investments Pty Ltd v Knight (1979) 144 CLR 360 at 367. Again, the lien may operate in aid of a purely equitable relationship, as in Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242 at 263 and Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583 at 598.

[page 56] Equitable liens include vendor’s lien (see 2.10–2.14), purchaser’s lien (see 2.15) and liens for expenditure on another’s property (see 2.16–2.17). The situations where such liens may arise are summarised in Sykes and Walker, pp 199–206. It has been said that the only feature linking these types of equitable liens is that they can be said to be ‘a right which may be said to be invented for the purpose of doing justice’: Whitebread & Co Ltd v Watt [1902] 1 Ch 835 at 838. Equitable liens may arise in various other situations, the most common being the lien of a partner or a company over the shares of the members, a beneficiary’s lien over the trust property and liens arising from right of indemnity: see 2.18. Equity will not always hold there to be a lien just because there is a situation where a party claims that it would be appropriate to confer a security on the basis that a lien would lie at law in analogous circumstances: Gladstone v Birley (1817) 2 Mer 993; 35 ER 993.

Vendor’s lien 2.10 A vendor has a lien for unpaid purchase money. Though of an equitable character, the lien was recognised in law as well as in equity. (However, in saying this it should be pointed out that an unpaid vendor has no common law lien over the title deeds once he has parted with them: Goode v Burton (1847) 1 Ex 189; 154 ER 80.) The lien arises as soon as a binding contract for sale is entered into and continues until the purchase money is paid. The lien arises by operation of law and does not depend on the subjective intention of the parties; thus it is irrelevant that the vendor was unaware of its existence: Barclays Bank plc v Estates and Commercial Ltd [1997] 1 WLR 415. The lien rests upon the plain principle of equity that a person who has obtained possession of property under a contract for payment of the value shall not keep it without payment: Mackreth v Symmons (1808) 15 Ves 329; 33 ER 778. If there is part payment, the lien remains for the unpaid balance: Re Birmingham [1959] Ch 523; [1958] 2 All ER 397 cited with approval in London and Cheshire Insurance Co Property Ltd v Laplagrene Co Ltd [1971] Ch 499 at 514; [1971] 1 All ER 766. It must be noted that, in Queensland, by statute, there can be no vendor’s

lien over Torrens System or Crown Lands Act lands, see, respectively Queensland Torrens Act s 178 and Land Act s 39. The vendor’s lien also arises for the purchase money of chattels (see, for instance, the provisions of the Sales of Goods Acts of the various states) but with the distinction that, inasmuch as there was not, as a general rule, any lien at law without possession, the vendor of land could have a lien at law for the purchase money, after execution of an absolute conveyance, either on the land or on the deeds (which, though they may actually be in the vendor’s possession, belong to the right of the owner of the property). Nor, for the same reason, had the vendor of chattels any lien for the price after he had parted with possession of them, but the vendor’s right in equity is independent of possession (see Langen & Wind Ltd v Bell [1972] Ch 685), does not depend on specific performance (Hewett v Court (1983) 149 CLR 639; Evans v McLean (1985) 14 ACLR 233), and exists as well after as before conveyance: Wrout v Dawes (1858) 25 Beav 369; 53 ER 678. Thus in Elderly Citizens Homes of SA Inc v Balnaves (1998) 72 SASR 210 Debelle J said (at para 34) that it is well established that an unpaid seller of personal estate has a lien for the unpaid purchase money in the same way as an unpaid vendor of real estate has a lien for the unpaid purchase money, and that lien gives rise to an equitable interest in the personalty. He cited Davies v Thomas [1900] 2 Ch 462 and Re Stucley [1906] 1 Ch 67. He then noted that the lien is not a mere personal equity but creates a charge upon and an interest in the property sold in the same manner as if that charge had been in writing: Rose v Watson (1864) 10 HLC 672 at 683 (11 ER 1187 at 1192) and Re Stucley (supra) at 83. [page 57] The unpaid vendor does not lose his lien by remaining in possession in some other capacity, for instance as a tenant under a sale and lease back transaction: London & Cheshire Insurance Co Ltd v Laplagrene Property Co Ltd [1971] Ch 499; [1971] 1 All ER 766. For a lien in respect of shares, see Musselwhite v C H Musselwhite & Sons Ltd [1962] Ch 964; [1962] 1 All ER 201 and Langen & Wind Ltd v Bell, above.

Contracts for the sale of land 2.11 The doctrine of ‘vendor’s lien’ is ‘one created by equity as part of a scheme of equitable adjustment of mutual rights and obligations applying, unless negatived, to every ordinary contract for the sale of land’: Davies v Littlejohn (1923) 34 CLR 174 at 185 per Isaacs J. It is part of the same scheme whereby ordinarily after a valid contract for sale the equitable interest in the land passes to the purchaser: see Re Thackwray and Young’s Contract (1888) 40 Ch D 34 at 38. See also Lysaght v Edwards (1876) 2 Ch D 499; Wossidlo v Catt (1934) 52 CLR 301 at 307-8 and Meyerhoff v Zed [1923] SASR 282. The Australian law was summarised in Reliance Finance Corp Pty Ltd v Heid [1982] 1 NSWLR 466 at 478, as follows: The correct view would seem to be that in theory the lien may arise when an enforceable contract is entered into, but that the nature of the remedies available to the vendor as a result of the lien varies depending upon the extent to which the contract has been performed. However, even though it may arise earlier, it certainly arises or exists when completion has taken place and part of the purchase price has not been paid, unless a contrary intention appears. A contrary intention may appear where the contract provides for the satisfaction of the purchase price by some means other than payment on completion.

This view was affirmed by the High Court on appeal: see (1984) 154 CLR 326. The requirement of a specifically enforceable contract for the sale of land as a prerequisite to any finding of an equitable lien in favour of the vendor was reaffirmed in Re MAS Food Industries (Aust) Pty Ltd (in liq) [2000] WASC 155. The vendor’s lien exists generally (the contract not being illegal) in respect of all freehold and leasehold land: Winter v Lord Anson (1827) 3 Russ 488; 38 ER 658; also in respect of personal chattels, as is explained in 2.12.

Vendor’s lien over chattels 2.12 The lien extends in respect of trade machinery (Re Vulcan Ironworks Co (1888) 4 TLR 312) and indeed in respect of personal property other than chattels. Examples are: Davies v Thomas [1900] 2 Ch 462, over a share of proceeds of sale of leaseholds; Re Stucley [1906] 1 Ch 67, a case involving the reversionary interest in a trust fund. Langen & Wind Ltd v Bell [1972] Ch 685 is an illustration of an unpaid vendor’s lien in respect of shares.

Extent of vendor’s lien 2.13 The lien extends not only to the unpaid price, but also to interest on it from the time the lien comes into existence: Rose v Watson (1864) 10 HLC 672; 11 ER 1187; Re Stucley [1906] 1 Ch 67. The lien exists whether the whole or part of the purchase price is unpaid, and even though a receipt may have been given for it and whether the consideration is a sum in gross or is payable by installments. See, generally, Lightwood, Williams on Vendor and Purchaser, 4th ed, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1936, vol 2, pp 983 ff; Sugden, A Concise and Practical Treatise of the Law of Vendors and Purchasers of Estates, 14th ed, H. Sweet, London, 1862, p 676. The lien binds not only the purchaser and persons claiming under the purchaser’s volunteers, but also persons having equitable interests, and persons claiming under the original purchaser who acquired the legal estate with notice of the non-payment of the purchase money: Elliot v Edwards (1802) 3 Bos & P 181; 127 ER 100; Mackreth v Symmons (1808) 15 Ves 329; 33 ER 778. [page 58] Lien does exist over land under the Torrens system, but in such a case the lien may be defeated by the operation of the indefeasibility provisions of that Act: Reliance Finance Corp Pty Ltd v Heid [1982] 1 NSWLR 466; on appeal at (1983) 154 CLR 326. Where in the deed the consideration is expressed to be paid, but is in fact wholly or partly left unpaid, parol evidence may be given on the part of the purchaser of the actual transaction, because it is the vendor who, by claiming a lien, is the first to set up an equity against the written statement in the deed: Winter v Lord Anson (1827) 3 Russ 488; 38 ER 658, and compare Heid’s case, above. The lien extends to money advanced by the vendor to the purchaser for improvements: Ex parte Linden (1841) 1 Mont D & De G 428. A vendor’s lien may arise where the purchaser fails to perform acts, the obligation to perform which forms part of the consideration for the sale: Uziell-Hamilton v Keen (1971) 22 P & CR 655. Semble, the benefit of a vendor’s lien can be transferred, even by parol, to a person in possession of the deeds: Dryden v Frost (1838) 3 My & Cr 670;

40 ER 1084. A vendor who has such a lien is entitled to the title deeds and may retain them if already held: Dryden’s case at 672, 673 (ER 1085–6) and see Williams, Vendor and Purchaser, 3rd ed, Sweet & Maxwell 1922, vol 2, p 987. A vendor’s lien upon realty is enforceable by sale once the lien has been established by the court; and see Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Horvath [1996] ANZ ConvR 501, referring to this sentence in the first Australian edition. The court may also enforce the lien by appointing a receiver pending sale or by injunction operating to restore possession of the property. The lien of an unpaid vendor also gives the vendor the alternative right to rescind the contract and recover possession: Lysaght v Edwards (1876) 2 Ch D 499 at 506. A vendor cannot enforce the lien by foreclosure: Munns v Isle of Wight Railway Co (1870) 5 Ch App 414. The lien may never arise because the vendor may take a superior security. This will be the case, for example, where the vendor of property leaves the whole or part of the purchase money outstanding and secured by a mortgage of the property sold: see Wossidlo v Catt (1935) 52 CLR 301; Capital Finance Co Ltd v Stokes [1969] 1 Ch 261; Bank of Ireland Finance Ltd v Daly Ltd [1978] IR 79; Re Bond Worth Ltd [1980] Ch 228 at 251; Evans v McLean (1984) 9 ACLR 233; but cf Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Horvath, above, where it was held that a vendor’s lien existed independently of a mortgage of the property to a minor which was rendered void by s 49 of the Victorian Act, to which the bank was entitled by way of subrogation; and see Thurston v Nottingham Permanent Benefit Building Society [1902] 1 Ch 1; and Evandale Estates Pty Ltd v Keck [1963] VR 647.

Liens and invalid mortgages 2.14 By stipulating and obtaining a valid mortgage or charge, the vendor abandons any claim to the unpaid vendor’s lien, because the vendor has got what was bargained for, namely a mortgage or charge which was valid and enforceable at its inception. This is so even though it is later found that the charge is void for non-registration on the liquidation of the purchaser company: Re Molton Finance Ltd [1968] Ch 325; [1967] 3 All ER 843 (CA); Capital Finance Co Ltd v Stokes [1969] 1 Ch 261; [1968] 3 All ER 865 (CA); Burston Finance Ltd v Speirway Ltd [1974] 3 All ER 735; [1974] 1 WLR 1648; Cheltenham & Gloucester plc v Appleyard [2004] EWCA Civ 291, but

compare Coptic Ltd v Bailey [1972] Ch 446; [1972] 1 All ER 1242; note by Sunnucks on Molton’s case in (1970) 33 Mod LR 131. The sometimes important because had the vendor’s lien continued to would have ranked in priority to any such mortgage or charge subsequently.

and see point is exist it granted

If the mortgage or charge was void from the outset, the lien is not lost, for the vendor cannot be taken to have intended to give up the lien except on the basis of acquiring an [page 59] effective mortgage or charge: Thurstan v Nottingham Permanent Benefit Building Society [1902] 1 Ch 1, affirmed [1903] AC 6; Orakpo v Manson Investments Ltd [1978] AC 95; [1977] 3 All ER 1. However, if the mortgage or charge is merely unenforceable, the lien is lost, because the lender obtained a valid security, albeit it was unenforceable: see the Orakpo case at AC 114; All ER 16. These principles apply also to persons, such as mortgagees, advancing money for the purchase of a property to be mortgaged, succeeding to the vendor’s lien by subrogation and subsequent mortgagees whose advances are used to discharge prior mortgages, but there will be no lien if the intention was simply the creation of an unsecured loan: see Paul v Spierway Ltd [1976] Ch 220 and generally Boodle Hatfield & Co v British Films Ltd [1986] NLJ Rep 117; [1986] PCC 176.

Purchaser’s lien 2.15 Where a contract for sale of land goes off without any default of the purchaser, the latter is entitled to a lien on the vendor’s interest in the land for all sums paid under the contract on account of purchase money with interest: Burgess v Wheate (1757) 1 Eden 177 at 211; 28 ER 652 at 665; Wylkes v Lee (1855) 3 Drew 396 at 404; 61 ER 954 at 957; Rose v Watson (1864) 10 HLC 671; 11 ER 1187; Aberaman Ironworks v Wickens (1868) LR 4 Ch App 101 at 109-10; Lee-Parker v Izzet [1971] 1 WLR 1688 at 1692; [1971] 3 All ER 1099 at 1106; Frankcombe v Foster Investments Pty Ltd [1978] 2 NSWLR 41

at 57. A purchaser has a lien to secure repayment of the deposit where the purchaser has properly rescinded the contract (Whitbread & Co Ltd v Watt [1902] 1 Ch 835) but the right to a lien is dependent upon the purchaser being entitled to repayment of the deposit: Rizoto v Kaihatsu Gumi Ltd v Capital and Coastal Ltd (1998) Q ConvR 54-511. A purchaser’s lien is an interest in the land which may be protected by caveat: Frankcombe v Foster Investments Pty Ltd, above, at 57. The lien arises at the time when the contract of sale becomes incapable of performance: Rodger v Harrison [1893] 1 QB 161. A purchaser who desires to enforce the lien must submit to perform the contract, provided that it is still on foot: Ridout v Fowler [1904] 1 Ch 658 at 663 (on appeal [1904] 2 Ch 93). See, in general, Stonham, The Law of Vendor and Purchaser, Law Book Co, Sydney, 1964, [1334] ff.

Liens for expenditure on another’s property 2.16 It is clear that upon general considerations of justice, or upon the principle that a person who seeks the aid of equity must admit equitable rights of others directly arising out of the same subject matter, equity may raise liens over property. See Shirlaw v Taylor (1991) 31 FCR 222 at 228; 102 ALR 551 at 558 and see note ‘Equitable liens’ (1931) 31 Col LR 1335 at 1342-3. Illustrations of this principle are situations where a person has constituted a fund by his or her skill and efforts which is brought into court; the costs and expenses in amassing that fund are to be a first claim on the fund: Batten v Wedgwood Coal & Iron Co (1884) 28 Ch D 317 at 324-5; Re Universal Distributing Co Ltd (1933) 48 CLR 171 at 174-5. Another illustration is where a co-owner has expended money on property which benefits co-owners: for example, Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242 at 263 and Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583 at 598. Expenditure on property does not of itself give rise to an equitable lien even though the expenditure preserves or improves the property: Burridge v Row (1842) 1 Y & CC 183; 62 ER 846; Re Leslie (1883) 23 Ch D 552; Strutt v Tippett (1889) 61 LT 460; 62 LT 475.

[page 60] A mortgagor of leasehold land who purchases the reversion is not entitled to a lien for the purchase money as against his mortgagee: Leigh v Burnett (1885) 29 Ch D 231. A second mortgagee who improves the property has no lien for that expenditure against the first mortgagee: Landowners West of England and South Wales Land Drainage and Inclosure Co v Ashford (1880) 16 Ch D 411 at 433. As can be seen from 2.30, the rule applied even if the payment was made to salvage or preserve the property. However, where the owner of the property has invited or expressly encouraged the expenditure of the money, an equitable lien may arise: Chalmers v Pardoe [1963] 1 WLR 677 at 682; [1963] 3 All ER 552 at 555. A modern example of this rule is where a ‘granny flat’ is built onto another’s house and then divorce or some other family rift makes living in that flat untenable: Morris v Morris [1982] 1 NSWLR 61; Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1985) 2 NSWLR 406, varied (1987) 164 CLR 137. Thus, the mere fact that a person builds on another’s land will be insufficient to raise a lien, but it will be otherwise if a belief was induced in the builder that it was in order for the erection to take place: Cawdor v Lewis (1835) 1Y & C Ex 427 at 433; 160 ER 174 at 176.

Salvage 2.17 The traditional rule was that no equitable lien arises from a person paying out money to salvage the subject property. Salvage, it was said, is a doctrine of admiralty that does not apply to the law of property: Nicholson v Chapman (1793) 2 H Bl 254 at 257; 126 ER 536 at 538; Atkinson v Lohre (1879) 4 App Cas 755 at 760. Thus a mortgagee who paid premiums on a policy of life assurance on the mortgagor’s life had no claim on the proceeds of the policy (Falcke v Scottish Imperial Insurance Co Ltd (1886) 34 Ch D 234), nor did a person who repaired a house decaying from dry rot have a lien for the cost of preservation: Re Teissier’s Settled Estates [1893] 1 Ch 153. These views were accepted by the High Court in Hill v Ziymack (1908) 7 CLR 352. A view more sympathetic to the payer was taken in Ireland, but even there, a salvage lien could only be obtained by a person with an interest in the

property salved, such as a sub-lessee who paid out the rent owing by his landlord to the head landlord: Locke v Evans (1823) 11 Ir Rep 52; Fetherstone v Mitchell (1848) 11 Ir Eq Rep 35; O’Geran v McSwiney (1874) IR 8 Eq 500; O’Loughlin v Dwyer (1884) LR Ir 13 Ch D 75. A payer might succeed on the basis of estoppel, such as the case where money was paid in the belief that he had title such as in the Ramsden v Dyson (1866) LR 1 HL 129 situation. ‘Salvage’ is a term also used in more modern cases to denote a claim made by a person for the skill and labour expended in preserving property, in which circumstances a lien is usually granted: see Re Berkeley Applegate (Investment Consultants) Ltd (in liq) [1989] Ch 32 at 51; [1988] 3 All ER 71 at 83; Shirlaw v Taylor (1991) 31 FCR 222 at 230-1; 102 ALR 551 at 560; see also Re Tharp (1852) 2 Sm & Giff 578; 65 ER 533; Re Universal Distributing Co Ltd (1933) 48 CLR 171. In more modern times, the revivified principles of the law of restitution make one approach these traditional rules with caution: see Sutton, ‘What Should be Done for Mistaken Improvers’ in Essays on Restitution in Finn (ed), Law Book Co, Sydney, 1990, pp 256 ff.

Other equitable liens 2.18 A partner on dissolution of partnership has a lien over the surplus assets for his share of the surplus: Ex parte King (1810) 17 Ves 115; 34 ER 45; Kelly v Hutton (1868) LR 3 Ch App 703; Mycock v Beatson (1879) 8 Ch D 384; Binney v Mutrie (1886) 12 App Cas 160 at 165. The lien is confined to the assets of the partnership at the date of dissolution: Payne v Hornby (1858) 25 Beav 280; 53 ER 643. In Thurston v Nottingham Permanent Benefit Building Society [1902] 1 Ch 1 it was established that a [page 61] lender is entitled to a lien upon real property and the title deeds for the purchase money paid by the lender for the borrower to the vendor with interest thereon; and see Evandale Estates Pty Ltd v Keck [1963] VR 647; and Commonwealth Bank v Horvath [1996] ANZ ConvR 501. The general

rule is that a person does not acquire any proprietary interest in or lien over the property of another unless the person expending the money has done so in the belief that a partial or entire interest in the property would be obtained as a result in circumstances where the true owner is estopped from denying the claim: see Lavery v R & I Bank of WA Ltd (SC (WA), Full Court, 7 September 1995); referring to Dillwyn v Llewellyn (1862) 4 De G F and J 517; 45 ER 1285; and Ramsden v Dyson (1865) LR 1 HL 219. See also Edlan No 54 Pty Ltd v McIntyre (2003) 47 ACSR 691; and UCB Group Ltd v Hedworth [2003] EWCA Civ 1717. It is not uncommon for the constitution of a limited company to impose a lien on shares for debts due to the company including unpaid calls. Such provisions will validly impose an equitable charge over the shares that will prevail over a later mortgage. Illustrations are found in Re Gippsland Steam Navigation Co; Ex parte Chuck (1875) 1 VLR (Eq) 141; Ex parte Trevascus; Re William McCulloch & Co Ltd (1879) 5 VLR (L) 195; Ex parte Stringer (1882) 9 QBD 436; Bradford Banking Co Ltd v Henry Briggs, Son & Co Ltd (1886) 12 App Cas 29; Everitt v Automatic Weighing Machine Co [1892] 3 Ch 506; Champagne Perrier-Jouet SA v HH Finch Ltd [1982] 3 All ER 713; [1982] 1 WLR 1359; Chase Corporation (Australia) Pty Ltd v North Sydney Brick and Tile Co Ltd (1994) 35 NSWLR 1; (1994) 14 ACSR 586, and see the note on this case at (1996) 4 APLJ 146 (Gray). Owners of a trade mark have no lien on goods which bear a fraudulent trade mark to secure the costs of proceedings to enforce their rights: Moet v Pickering (1878) 8 Ch D 372. An equitable lien may also arise from the right of a beneficiary to follow trust funds: see, for example, Re Pumfrey (1882) 22 Ch D 255; Re Brown (1886) 32 Ch D 597. Where a trustee makes an improper investment the beneficiary may elect to repudiate the investment. If he does so, he has a lien over the investment for the amount of trust funds invested: Francis v Francis (1854) 5 De G M & G 108 at 120; 43 ER 811 at 816; Trevillan v Exeter (1854) 5 De G M & G 828 at 834; 43 ER 1091 at 1094; Re Whitely (1886) 33 Ch D 347 at 354; Re City of Sydney Real Estate Co Ltd (1928) 29 SR (NSW) 80 at 88. A similar rule applies where a fiduciary improperly deals with property: see, for example, Harpham v Shacklock (1881) 19 Ch D 207 and Re Vernon,

Ewens & Co (1886) 33 Ch D 402. A trustee also has a lien over the trust property to secure moneys properly paid by him in the execution of the trust: Vacuum Oil Co Pty Ltd v Wiltshire (1945) 72 CLR 319; Octavo Investments Pty Ltd v Knight (1979) 144 CLR 360 at 367 and see Ford and Lee, Principles of Law of Trusts, 3rd ed, Law Book Co, Sydney, 1996, [14025] where there is an extensive discussion of the matter. The trustee’s interest, however, is not considered a security interest, but a beneficial interest under the trust: Chief Commissioner of Stamp Duties v Buckle (1998) 192 CLR 226; 151 ALR 1. Creditors may execute upon that equitable lien: see Ford, ‘Trading Trusts and Creditors’ Rights’ (1981) 13 MULR 1 at 14-18; see also Ex parte Garland (1803) 10 Ves 111; 32 ER 786; Ex parte Edmonds (1862) 4 De GF & J 488; 45 ER 1273; Re Johnson; Shearman v Robinson (1880) 15 Ch D 548; and Marginson v Potter (1976) 136 CLR 161 at 176; 11 ALR 64 at 75. Similar principles apply to liquidators and receivers, see 2.52. However, it must not be imagined that equity will create some equitable lien and charge whenever it sees some unfair conduct. There is, indeed, no general principle of equity to the effect that money expended by a person to preserve or benefit the property of another creates a lien on the property in his or her favour: Falcke and Scottish Imperial [page 62] Insurance Company (1886) 34 Ch D 234 per Bowen LJ at 248-9; Pettit v Pettit [1970] AC 777 and Lavery v R & I Bank of WA Ltd (SC (WA), 7 September 1995, unreported) per Malcolm CJ with whom Franklyn and Owen JJ agreed.

Extinction of equitable liens 2.19 An equitable lien will be lost by abandonment. The intention to abandon may be inferred from conduct and the surrounding circumstances: Bank of Africa v Salisbury Gold Mining Co [1892] AC 281 at 284. The taking of other security usually indicates that the lien has been abandoned: see Halsbury’s Laws of England, 5th ed, vol 68, [882]ff and

Nairn v Prowse (1802) 7 Ves 752; 31 ER 1291; Re Millear (1897) 22 VLR 542 at 547. However, this fact is not conclusive: Mackreth v Symmons (1808) 15 Ves 329 at 348; 33 ER 778 at 785. The lien will be lost if the parties agree to postpone payment until the property is resold: Re Parkes; Ex parte Parkes (1822) 1 Gl & J 228. See also Thompson v Palmer (1993) 49 CLR 507 and 2.14 ff. The lien will also be extinguished by operation of the Limitation Acts: Re Stucley [1906] 1 Ch 67.

C. Common Law Liens Liens generally 2.20 One of the most succinct definitions of lien was given by Grose J in Hammonds v Barclay (1802) 2 East 227 at 235; 102 ER 356 at 359: ‘A lien is a right in one man to retain that which is in his possession belonging to another till certain demands of him the person in possession are satisfied.’While this definition covers the vast majority of liens, it must be said that liens may arise in a heterogeneous number of ways at law and in equity. Many liens arise in special situations and have particular limitations. In its primary or legal sense, ‘lien’ means a right at common law in one person to retain that which is rightfully in his possession. In a secondary sense, the term may be applied to a right subsisting in a person who has no possession, but who has a right against the owner analogous to a legal lien: Halsbury’s Laws of England, 5th ed, vol 68, [801] ff; and see Pioneer Container (The) [1994] 2 AC 324; [1994] 2 All ER 250 and Premier Group Pty Ltd v Followmount Transport Pty Ltd (SC (Qld), Williams J, 19 March 1998, unreported). This work does not attempt to cover all liens, merely those with the closest nexus to the topics covered in the remainder of this section: artificers’ liens are considered in 2.21–2.27, accountants’ liens in 2.28, insurers’ liens in 2.29 and solicitors’ liens in 2.33–2.51. There may also exist a category of lien that is neither the creation of common law nor equity. The maritime lien of subfreight on cargo is the prime example: see Tagart, Beaton & Co v James Fisher & Sons [1903] 1 KB 391 at 395; Agnew v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2001] 2 AC 710

at 727 and see The juridical nature of a lien of subfreight [1989] LMCLQ 191 (Oditah).

Artificers’ liens 2.21 A particular lien arises when a person expends labour and skill to improve a chattel: see, for example, Hatton v Car Maintenance Co Ltd [1915] 1 Ch 621. [page 63] An artificer’s lien will not arise unless certain conditions are fulfilled. These can be summarised as follows: 1. The work done must improve the chattel or increase its value. 2. The chattel must have been delivered to the person asserting the lien for the work to be done. 3. The work must have been authorised by the owner of the chattel or his or her authorised agents. 4. The work must be completely performed. It should be noted that circumstances may well show that the parties did not intend there to be any lien even though the case is one where the law would ordinarily imply a lien. Thus parties may agree that there be a set-off of fees against a future liability or that nothing shall be payable until a future date. In such cases, no lien will arise until the debt is actually payable: Raitt v Mitchell (1815) 4 Camp 146; 171 ER 47; Vered v Inscorp Holdings Ltd (1993) 31 NSWLR 290. See in general Elliott, The Artificer’s Lien, Law Book Co, London, 1967, chapter 3. These various requirements are dealt with in the succeeding four paragraphs.

Improvement 2.22 It is necessary that the person claiming the lien has actually improved the chattel or animal or increased their value. Thus there will be a lien by a garage proprietor for the cost of repairs, but not for the cost of mere

maintenance: Keene v Thomas [1905] 1 KB 136; Green v All Motors Ltd [1917] 1 KB 625; Hatton v Car Maintenance Ltd [1915] 1 Ch 621 at 624. A tailor will have a lien for making up a customer’s cloth or repairing his clothing, or a printer printing manuscripts on paper provided by the customer: Blake v Nicholson (1814) 3 M & S 167; 105 ER 573. Likewise a person making prints from a tracing will have a lien (Frew v Burnside (1925) 42 WN (NSW) 111); so will a person who packs goods into containers (Standard Electronic Apparatus Laboratories Pty Ltd v Stenner [1960] NSWR 447) and a person slaughtering cattle and preparing meat for market: Dinmore Meatworks Pty Ltd v Kerr (1962) 108 CLR 628 and Protean Enterprises (Newmarket) Pty Ltd v Randall [1975] VR 327. The same rule applies where the work is done with a live animal. Thus a person who is a horse breaker (Judson v Etheridge (1833) 1 CR & M 743; 149 ER 548) or a trainer (Bevan v Waters (1828) 3 Car & P 520; 172 ER 529 and Pegasus Leasing Ltd v Cofini (SC (NSW), Powell J, 13 November 1991, noted 67 ALJ 467)) has a lien. However a person who merely agists horses has no such lien: Jackson v Cummins (1839) 5 M & W 342; 151 ER 145 and Orchard v Rackstraw (1850) 9 CB 698; 137 ER 1066. This distinction may lead to logical difficulties. Thus in Re Southern Livestock Producers Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 24 at 28; [1963] 3 All ER 801 at 804, Pennycuick J said that if the matter were free from authority, ‘It seems to me to be illogical that a kennel keeper should have a lien for the expense of stripping a dog, but not for that of boarding it. However, it is quite impossible for me at this time of day to introduce that sort of modification into a well-established principle’. A person by whom a chattel has been improved has a possessory lien for the price of his labour, or of his skill though it be exercised without actual labour, and for his expenses incurred in the improvement thereof: Bevan v Waters (1828) 3 Car & P 520; 172 ER 529; Bleaden v Hancock (1829) 4 Car & P 152; 172 ER 648; Judson v Etheridge (1833) 1 Cr & M 743; 149 ER 548. A person to whom a mortgage deed is delivered as evidence of his title to apply for payment has no lien upon it for his charge for making the application: Sanderson v Bell (1834) 2 Cr & M 304; 149 ER 776. [page 64]

The lien will be a particular lien, that is, only to charge with respect to the particular work done in most cases. These include the lien of an accountant upon books of account for work done before the owner’s bankruptcy (Re Hill; Ex parte Southall (1848) 17 LJ Bktcy 21), that of an arbitrator upon his award (R v South Devon Rail Co (1850) 15 QB 1043; 117 ER 754; Re Coombs and Freshfield and Fernley (1850) 4 Ex 839; 154 ER 1456; Mason v Stokes Bay Pier & Rail Co (1862) 32 LJ Ch 110) and the lien of a conveyancer: Hollis v Claridge (1813) 4 Taunt 807; 128 ER 549; Steadman v Hockley (1846) 15 M & W 553; 153 ER 969. However, in respect of a few callings the lien has been held to be general, that is, a right of detainer for general balances. A solicitor has such a lien: see 2.33 ff.

Delivered to the artificer 2.23 Because a lien is the right to keep possession, it cannot exist unless the chattel has been lawfully delivered into the artificer’s possession. As Lord Ellenborough CJ said in Heywood v Waring (1815) 4 Camp 291 at 295; 171 ER 93 at 94: ‘Without possession there can be no lien. A lien is a right to hold; and how can that be held which was never possessed?’ Thus if a person calls an artificer into his or her home to repair goods there can be no lien. It will be otherwise if the artificer with the consent of the owner removes the goods to his own workshop. There is little purpose in a work of this nature in dealing with the detailed situations in which goods may or may not be held to be in the custody of the artificer. The matter is dealt with in Elliott, The Artificer’s Lien, pp 23–4.

Work done with owner’s authority 2.24 The work in respect of which a lien is claimed must have been performed at the request or by the authority of the owner of the chattel: Hiscox v Greenwood (1802) 4 Esp 174; 170 ER 681; Hollis v Claridge (1813) 4 Taunt 807; 128 ER 549; Castellain v Thompson (1862) 13 CB (NS) 105; 143 ER 41. Partners in a trade may have a lien for labour although one of the firm is a part owner of the chattel on which the work was done: Franklin v Hosier (1821) 4 B & Ald 341; 106 ER 962. It is sufficient that the work was done at the request of some person who has contracted with the owner to do the work — that is, a subcontractor has a lien: Bellamy v Davey

[1891] 3 Ch 540. It does not matter that the work was done on goods bearing an infringing trade mark: Moet v Pickering (1878) 8 Ch D 372.

Work completely performed 2.25 The work must be completely performed: Pinnock v Harrison (1838) 3 M & W 532 at 535; 150 ER 1256 at 1258. However, if the completion of the work was prevented by the owner of the chattel, a lien arises for the value of the work actually done: Lilley v Barnsley (1844) 1 Car & K 344; 174 ER 839. It would seem that a preferable way of stating this proposition is that the lien arises at the commencement of the work or the time at which the materials are furnished, the doing or furnishing of which gives rise to the lien. This is the statutory position in Canada: see Silver v R R Seeton Construction Ltd (1977) 74 DLR (3d) 212. However, if the contractor discharges himself, the lien will be discharged and, if there is no obligation to make immediate payment for the work or material, the lien will not arise until payment has become due: Chase v Westmore (1816) 5 M & S 180; 105 ER 1016; Crawshay v Homfray (1820) 3 B & Ald 50; 106 ER 856.

Extent of lien 2.26 The lien is upon the chattel whereon the labour or skill has been bestowed and not upon that by means whereof the improvement was wrought. Thus a conveyancer’s lien is upon the document drafted and not upon those he has made use of in preparing the [page 65] draft (Steadman v Hockley (1846) 15 M & W 553; 153 ER 969), and the lien of a printer is upon the printed work, not the printing plates (Bleaden v Hancock (1829) 4 Car & P 152; 172 ER 648), but see (Marks v Lahee (1837) 3 Bing NC 408; 132 ER 467); and see (Henry Walker Contracting Pty Ltd v Pegasus Gold (Aust) Pty Ltd (SC (NT), 1998, unreported)), where claims for battlers, drilling and loss of productivity were rejected in this context. The lien extends to every part of several chattels for the price of the labour

bestowed upon all. Thus the printer’s lien is upon all printed work in his hands for the printing of the whole and the lien of the tailor upon each part of a suit: Blake v Nicholson (1814) 3 M & S 167; 105 ER 573. If the goods which are subject to the lien belong to several owners, the whole may be detained, or the lien may be claimed rateably, but part cannot be allowed to go free to one owner and the lien be claimed against the residue: Grant v Humphery (1862) 3 F & F 162; 176 ER 73.

Priority of lien over mortgagee 2.27 Awkward questions may arise where work is done on chattels which are the subject of mortgage. Generally speaking, a person is not bound by a lien claimed by an artificer unless that person either ordered the work or impliedly authorised the mortgagor to have the work done: Williams v Allsup (1861) 10 CB (NS) 417; 142 ER 514; Keene v Thomas [1905] 1 KB 136; Green v All Motors Ltd [1917] 1 KB 625; Moyes v Magnus Motors Ltd [1927] NZLR 906; Fisher v The Automobile Finance Co of Australia Ltd (1928) 41 CLR 167; Bowmaker Ltd v Wycombe Motors Ltd [1946] 2 All ER 113; Lombard (Aust) Ltd v Wells Park Motors Pty Ltd [1960] VR 693; and Australian Guarantee Corp Ltd v Western Underwriters Insurance Ltd [1988] 2 Qd R 119. It is not uncommon for hire purchase and other chattel security documents to deny the hirer or mortgagor the right to create liens. The Australian position appears to be that, whether or not the artificer knows of this clause, his lien will not be effective against the mortgagee: Fisher v Automobile Finance Co Ltd (1928) 41 CLR 167; Lombard (Australia) Ltd v Wells Park Motors Pty Ltd [1960] VLR 693 and see Peden, ‘Common law Liens — an Anglo-Australian conflict’ (1968) 6 Syd L Rev 39. In England the position appears otherwise; see, for example, Albemarle Supply Co Ltd v Hind & Co [1928] 1 KB 307. If a person has a contractual right to a lien, but a receiver is appointed before possession is obtained, the lien will be enforceable: Barker (George) (Transport) Ltd v Eynon [1974] 1 All ER 900; [1974] 1 WLR 462 and see Re Papesch [1992] 1 NZLR 751 at 758. As to the conflict between a holder of a lien to remove and store furniture and the holder of a bill of sale: see Kilners Ltd v The John Dawson

Investment Trust Ltd (1935) 35 SR (NSW) 274 at 280.

Accountants’ liens 2.28 In Re Gleebs Pty Ltd [1933] VLR 293, it was held that an accountant’s lien in respect of work done upon the books and papers of a company attaches only to those books and papers which embody in themselves the result of the work and consequent added value: see also Re International Tyre Co Pty Ltd (1979) 4 ACLR 553. The English Court of Appeal in Woodworth v Conroy [1976] QB 884 at 890 suggested that accountants may have a wider lien especially where they have been handed papers for the purpose of negotiating with taxation authorities. See also Vered v Inscorp Holdings Ltd (1993) 31 NSWLR 290 and Re Hill; Ex parte Southall (1848) 17 LJ Bktcy 21. An accountant’s lien does not extend to statutory records required to be kept at a company’s registered office: DTC (NC) Ltd v Gary Sargeant & Co [1996] 2 All ER 369; [1996] 1 WLR 797. [page 66]

Insurers’ liens 2.29 The insurer’s lien was considered in Napier (Lord) v Hunter [1993] AC 713 at 752; [1993] 1 All ER 385 at 409 per Lord Browne-Wilkinson: The contract of insurance contains an implied term that the assured will pay to the insurer out of the moneys received in reduction of the loss the amount to which the insurer is entitled by way of subrogation. That contractual obligation is specifically enforceable in equity against the defined fund (ie the damages) in just the same way as are other contracts to assign or charge specific property, eg equitable assignments and equitable charges. Since equity regards as done that which ought to be done under a contract, this specifically enforceable right gives rise to an immediate proprietary interest in the moneys recovered from the third party. In my judgment, this proprietary interest is adequately satisfied in the circumstances of subrogation under an insurance contract by granting the insurers a lien over the moneys recovered by the assured from the third party. This lien will be enforceable against the fund so long as it is traceable and has not been acquired by a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. In addition to the equitable lien, the insurer will have a personal right of action at law to recover the amount received by the assured as moneys had and received to the use of the insurer.

See also Re Miller Gibb & Co Ltd [1957] 1 WLR 703; [1957] 2 All ER

266 and Gummow (1993) 109 LQR 159.

Liens over cash 2.30 There is ample authority for the proposition that, in the appropriate case, a person may have a lien over a holding of cash. As one cannot have a lien over one’s own property, a banker does not have a lien over funds in a bank account. The relation of debtor and creditor governs the relationship, the bank ‘owns’ the money and so has no lien: Halesowen Presswork & Assemblies Ltd v Westminster Bank Ltd [1971] 1 QB 1 at 46. Again, the person claiming the lien must actually hold the cash. Money in a solicitor’s bank account is not held by the solicitor, so there is no retaining lien over it: Shand v M J Atkinson Ltd [1966] NZLR 551 at 559-60. In Ex parte Mackay (1873) 8 Ch App 643, A sold a patent to B, B lent A some money and also agreed to pay A royalties. B was to retain half the royalties towards satisfaction of the debt. On A’s bankruptcy, B was held to have a lien over half the royalties. In Webb v Smith (1885) 30 Ch D 192, auctioneers had sold a brewery for a customer and held part of the proceeds of sale. It was held that they had a lien over this money which was good against the person to whom the customer had charged the proceeds of sale of the brewery. The lien cannot be claimed over a fund which is held, with the holder’s consent, for an agreed special purpose — for example, where a solicitor holds money pending perfection of a receivership order: Wickens v Townshend (1830) 1 Russ & My 361; 39 ER 140; Re Birt (1883) 22 Ch D 604; Gobinddas Bhattar v Gajanand Pandey 31 AIR (1944) Cal 189; WFM Motors Pty Ltd v Maydwell (1994) 6 BPR 13,381. To hold otherwise would be to allow tortious or unconscionable conduct to be rewarded by the grant of a lien.

Assignment of lien 2.31 The weight of authority supports the view that the benefit of a lien may be assigned, along with the debt in respect of which it arises: Bull v Faulkner (1848) 2 De G & Sm 772; 64 ER 346. Cases such as McCombie v Davies (1805) 7 East 5 at 6; 103 ER 3 and Tobin v Melrose [1951] SASR 139 at 143 do not decide the contrary: Vered v Inscorp Holdings Ltd (1993) 31

NSWLR 290.

Loss of lien 2.32 A possessory lien will be lost by tender of the amount due to the holder (Huth & Co v Lamport (1886) 16 QBD 735), by abandonment (Re Noble; Ex parte Douglas (1833) Deac & Ch 310), or by taking alternative security: Cowell v Simpson (1809) 16 Ves 275 at [page 67] 279; 33 ER 989 at 990. The lien is also lost if possession is lost, so that redelivery of goods to the owner or his agent destroys the lien and when once made, cannot be recalled, even if made by mistake: Sweet v Pym (1800) 1 East 4; 102 ER 2; Dieas v Stockley (1836) 7 C & P 587; 173 ER 258 and see Bligh v Davies (1860) 28 Beav 211; 54 ER 346; and also Ambir Pty Ltd v Paspalis Hotel Investments Pty Ltd (2003) 174 FLR 483. However the lien will revive if delivery was obtained by fraud or trick and the property is recovered even if by stratagem. The holder of a lien may not notionally retain possession of the goods while allowing the owner to physically possess them. However, a lien by agreement may be created, as in Albemarle Supply Co Ltd v Hind & Co [1928] 1 KB 307. See generally Halsbury’s Laws of England, 5th ed, vol 68, [850] ff. If the property is removed from the possession of the holder of the lien without consent, the lien usually will be considered to continue. Thus in Mason v Morley (1865) 11 Jur (NS) 459, there was a loss of possession through fraud; see also Wallace v Woodgate (1824) Ry & M 193; 173 ER 990; 1 Car & P 575; 171 ER 1323. In Carter v Carter (1885) 55 LJ Ch 230 deeds were stolen; see also Ex parte Bell; Re Tunstall & Cash (1847) De Gex 577. Where the chattel is a movable such as a car or boat, temporary release will not necessarily extinguish the lien. Thus in Albemarle Supply Co Ltd v Hind & Co, above, a repairer’s lien on taxi cabs was not lost because the cabs plied daily for hire; nor was it lost in Industrial Acceptance Corp Ltd v Tompkins Contracting Ltd (1967) 62 DLR (2d) 693, where a garage operator released a

repaired truck to permit the owner to use it to earn moneys on condition that it was brought back periodically. So too in Frontmond Pty Ltd v Rodgers (1993) 6 BPR 13,112, where a boat was taken from its moorings for a temporary purpose or without the consent of the repairer, the lien remained. See also Traders Finance Corp v Bond Motor Sales [1954] OWN 785 at 786; Industrial Acceptance Corp Ltd v Tompkins Contracting Ltd (1967) 60 WWR (NS) 546.

D. Solicitors’ Liens Solicitors’ liens 2.33 Solicitors’ liens fall into three classes, namely (1) a retaining lien on papers, deeds and other documents, (2) a retaining lien at common law on cash funds in the solicitor’s possession and (3) an equitable ‘lien’ over fruits of litigation even though such fruits are not in the solicitor’s possession. A solicitor has a lien for his general professional charges upon all documents or other property of the client which come into his hands in the character of a solicitor while conducting the business or for the purposes of the client: Ex parte Sterling (1809) 16 Ves 258; 33 ER 982; Ex parte Nesbitt (1805) 2 Sch & Lef 279; Friswell v King (1846) 15 Sim 191; 60 ER 590; Euro Commercial Leasing Ltd v Cartwright & Lewis [1995] 2 BCLC 618, 621-2; Withers LLP v Langbar International Ltd [2012] 2 All ER 616 at 621 [19](CA). Furthermore the solicitor also has a particular lien on a document placed in his hands for the price of the work done thereon: Hollis v Claridge (1813) 4 Taunt 807; 128 ER 549. The lien extends to letters of administration and other orders of the court: Re Goods of Martin (1883) 13 LR Ir 312. A solicitor’s lien over documents etc is merely passive and possessory — that is to say, the solicitor has no right of actively enforcing his demand. It confers upon him merely the right to withhold possession of the documents or other personal property of his client or former client (Re Llewellen [1891] 3 Ch 145 at 147; Barratt v Gough-Thomas [1951] Ch 242 at 250); and it is not essential that any bill of costs has been rendered to the client as long as the costs have been incurred (see Dixon v LyTyTran Cao (Federal Court of Australia, Beazley J, 10 April 1995, unreported)); but see Queensland Mushrooms Pty

[page 68] Ltd v Willemse Family Co Pty Ltd [2002] QSC 76 in relation to the need to comply with regulatory provisions in relation to the provision of bills of costs in assessable form. Thus a solicitor who takes a lien over title deeds after the sequestration order is made is not a secured creditor and has no interest in the land: McLeish v Palmer (1921) 21 SR (NSW) 382; affirmed in (1921) 22 SR (NSW) 53. ‘The solicitor’s possessory lien is “purely a protective right – a right to refuse to transfer to a claimant property for which the claimant would be entitled to a transfer were it not for the existence of a claim by the lienor which the latter is entitled to protect by means of the lien … [it] exists for the protection of the solicitor’s claim for costs and disbursements, and for no other purpose…”: per Mc Coll JA in Bechera v Alie [2005] NSWCA 268 at [48] and see Bolster v Mc Callum (1966) 85 WN (Pt 1) 281; [1966] 2 NSWR 660; Re a Barrister and Solicitor; Re Legal Practitioners Ordinance 1970 (ACT) (1979) 40 FLR 26 at 39. The lien subsists until the solicitor is satisfied’: Robins v Goldingham (1872) LR 13Eq 440 at 442 A solicitor’s lien differs from that of a banker or a stockbroker, each of whom has a power of sale: Brandao v Barnett (1846) 12 Cl & Fin 787; 8 ER 1622; Jones v Peppercorne (1858) John 430; 70 ER 490; Brereton v Nicholls [1993] BCLC 593 at 595. An undertaking by a solicitor to redeliver a document on completion of a sole purpose for which the document has been held is inconsistent with its retention under a general lien: Leeper v Primary Producers’ Bank of Australia Ltd (1935) 53 CLR 250.

Historical Development 2.34 Solicitors’ liens have appeared in the law reports from the 17th century. The earliest recognition of a solicitor’s general lien appears to be Peterborough (Earl) v Williams 1687) Comberbach 43; 90 ER 332. See also Ex parte Bush (1734) 2 Eq Cas Abr 109:22 ER 93. As Paul Collins points out in his ‘The Developments of Solicitors’ Possessory Liens’(2013) 87 ALJ 710, by the early 19th century, a number of

cases in Chancery in England and Ireland revealed a tendency to subordinate the lien to the general interests of justice by refusing injunctive relief against a client continuing a proceeding with a new solicitor. In effect, these cases recognised a client’s right to change solicitors and declined to interfere with proceedings continued by a client that effectively undermined the former solicitor’s lien. See Merrewether v Mellish (1806) 13 Ves 161; 33 ER 255 and Ross v Laughton (1813) 1 V & B 349; 35 ER 136. However in Lord v Wormleighton (1822) Jac 580; 37 ER 969, Lord Eldon after consultation changed his approach and thereafter the lien prevailed over the client’s interest in continuing the litigation.

Solicitor’s lien over documents etc 2.35 The lien does not arise where documents or other property have been deposited with the solicitor for a special purpose, and accordingly he cannot detain them beyond that purpose: In Withers LLP v Langbar International Ltd [2012] 2 All ER 616 (CA) the English Court of appeal stressed that every word of the rule was significant including that the money or papers must be the property of the client and must have come to the possession of the solicitor with the consent of the client and come into his hands as a solicitor. Money in the solicitor’s hands in trust does not fall into this category. In the Withers case, money was paid into the solicitor’s hands as part of a court order so that disputed funds could be held by a neutral person. There was no lien on the money. Older cases to the same effect include: Lawson v Dickenson (1724) 8 Mod 306; 88 ER 218; Young v English (1843) 7 Beav 10; 49 ER 965; Gibson v May (1853) 4 De GM & G 512; 43 ER 607; Re Clark; Ex parte Newland (1876) 4 Ch D 515; Stumore v Campbell [1892] 1 QB 314. But to deprive a solicitor of his general lien, there must normally [page 69] be a special agreement as to the purpose of the deposit. However, circumstances may show that the solicitor obtained the money or papers on the basis that no lien would arise, Withers’ case supra. If, in the usual course

of dealing, the client from time to time hands papers to his solicitor, and does not get them again when the occasion that required them is at an end, the conclusion is that they are left with the solicitor upon the general account: Ex parte Sterling (1809) 16 Ves 258; 33 ER 982; Colmer v Ede (1870) 40 LJ Ch 185. In Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Kioussis (2000) 10 BPR 18,021, Young J cited the corresponding paragraph in the previous edition of this work and said that what is really being said by the relevant authorities is that one can infer from the client placing into the attorney’s hands papers in the course of business, that he has to have a general lien. However, if the circumstances under which the relevant property comes into a solicitor’s hands show the solicitor is not to have a lien, then no such lien will be inferred. The High Court considered the matter in Leeper v Primary Producers Bank of Australia Ltd (in liq) (1935) 53 CLR 250 at 256-7 and seems to have come to the view that even if documents come into a solicitor’s hands for a particular purpose, he may still have a lien while the particular purpose is still current. However, other facts and circumstances may show on the whole that there is no such lien. See also Duke Finance Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1990) 22 NSWLR 236 at 245-6, where Giles J reviewed a series of the cases in this area of law and noted that it was rather hard to justify their reasoning logically. He then said: The cases can be explained as finding such particular purposes — the purpose of keeping the securities in safe custody and not otherwise dealing with them; the purpose of holding the securities as security on a specific advance and not otherwise and must have been such as to lead to the conclusion that the possession was so confined to the particular purpose as to exclude the implication of a lien.

The enforcement of the lien differs depending on whether the solicitor has been discharged by the client or has discharged himself. In the former case, the solicitor can refuse to hand over the file until the costs are paid or until a satisfactory security is given, such as a bank guarantee. In the latter case, the overriding principle that a solicitor discharging the client is not allowed to assert the lien so as to interfere with the course of justice (Gamlen Chemical Co (UK) Ltd v Rochem Ltd [1980] 1 WLR 614; [1980] 1 All ER 1049 (CA) Jankowski v Mastoris (1995) 7 BPR 14,589) and see Heslop v Metcalfe(1837) 3 My & Cr 183 at 188-190, 40 ER 894 where Lord

Cottenham said that the solicitor should have every security not inconsistent with the cause. However, in Gamlen, the Court of Appeal held that there exists an exceptional discretion that the court might impose terms where justice so required. This was further considered in Ismail v Richards Butler [1996] QB 711. However, in Rafferty v Time 2000 West Pty Ltd (No 3) (2009) 257 ALR 503, Besanko J, after surveying the authorities, held that in determining whether an exceptional order should be made, the question whether the client had negated an ability to pay is not the only question but is only one factor among the other factors identified in Gamlen. He pointed out that the precise borders of the exception have not been clearly identified. See generally, P Collins, ‘The Developments of Solicitors’ Possessory Liens’ (2013) 87 ALJ 710. Where deeds upon which a solicitor has no existing lien are deposited with him only for the purposes of litigation, an order directing them to be given up by him will be made unconditionally, since he cannot acquire a lien on them after the commencement of the proceedings: Baker v Henderson (1830) 4 Sim 27; 58 ER 11; Bell v Taylor (1836) 8 Sim 216; 59 ER 87; and see Smith v Chichester (1842) 2 Dr & War 393. It will be otherwise if the documents did not come into the solicitor’s possession for the purposes of the litigation only, but for that and other purposes or if the lien is claimed for other [page 70] matters besides the cost of the proceedings and for costs incurred prior to the right of the person who seeks delivery of the deeds: Warburton v Edge (1839) 9 Sim 508; 59 ER 454. The solicitor who claims the lien must be the same person to whom the costs, in respect of what is claimed, are due. This rule excludes from the lien documents held by partners in respect of costs due to one or more of them before the partnership began, and documents held by a member of a dissolved partnership after the dissolution, for costs which were due to the firm: Re Forshaw (1847) 16 Sim 121; 60 ER 818; Vaughan v Vanderstegen (Annesley’s case) (1854) 2 Drew 409; 61 ER 778. Re Carter (1885) 53 LT

630 seems to run contrary to this view, but is distinguishable because the retiring member had removed the deeds without the consent of his late partners. Similarly, it was held that a solicitor was not entitled to a lien on certificates of title in respect of fees claimed against a mortgagor where the mortgage had been repaid and discharged in circumstances where the certificates had been held on behalf of the mortgagee, for whom the solicitor had also acted: Franicevich v Strong [1997] 1 NZLR 460; and see 2.41 and 2.42.

Lien limited to professional matter 2.36 The lien arises out of the relation between the client and the solicitor (Pelly v Wathen (1851) 1 De GM & G 16; 42 ER 457); and only when the solicitor receives the property in that character and in the performance of his professional duty to his client: Stevenson v Blakelock (1813) 1 M & S 535; 105 ER 200 and Re Rapid Road Transit Co Ltd [1909] 1 Ch 96; and see Franicevich v Strong [1997] 1 NZLR 460. The lien is only held in respect of taxable costs thus it cannot be used as a security for advances made by the solicitor to the client: Re Taylor Stileman & Underwood [1891] 1 Ch 590; and see Queensland Mushrooms Pty Ltd v Willemse Family Co Pty Ltd [2002] QSC 76; and Hammerstone Pty Ltd v Lewis [1994] 2 Qd R 267 as to the need for a bill in taxable form. Thus the operation of the lien is excluded in the case of documents received by a solicitor as next friend of a minor (Anon (1810), cited Montagu, Law of Lien, J. & W.T. Clarke, London, 1821, p 53), trustee (Brandao v Barnett (1846) 12 Cl & F 787; 8 ER 1622; Re Gough; Lloyd v Gough (1894) 70 LT 755; Stumore v Campbell [1892] 1 QB 314), land agent (Re Walker; Meredith v Walker (1893) 68 LT 517), or if they are received for safe custody: Re Long; Ex parte Fuller (1881) 16 Ch D 617, but see Re Walker. The lien will not apply where the documents were received by the solicitor as transferee of a mortgage for money lent from his own money, not that of his client: Vaughan v Vanderstegen (Annesley’s case) (1854) 2 Drew 409; 61 ER 778; Pelly v Wathen (1853) 4 De GM & G 512; 43 ER 607; Sheffield v Eden (1878) 10 Ch D 291. But where the solicitor discharges the debt with his client’s money given to him for the purpose, and thereupon receives the deposited deeds, he receives them in the course of business, and in the performance of his duty to his client, and they become subject in his hands to

his general lien: Stevenson v Blakelock (1813) 1 M & S 535; 105 ER 200. A solicitor is not, by the mere holding of an office under his clients, deprived of his specific lien upon documents for the price of work done thereon as solicitor: R v Sankey (1836) 5 A & E 423; 111 ER 1226, and see Newington Local Board v Eldridge (1879) 12 Ch D 349.

Loss or displacement of solicitor’s lien 2.37 If a solicitor takes a security for his costs, that is, in the absence of evidence of contrary intention, an abandonment of his lien: Re Taylor, Stileman & Underwood [1891] 1 Ch 590; Re Douglas Norman & Co [1898] 1 Ch 199; see also Groom v Cheesewright [1895] 1 Ch 730; Bissill v Bradford Tramway Co [1893] WN 44 (UK), and distinguish Re Morris [1908] 1 KB 473. However the fact of the solicitor’s taking a security on the documents by way of securing an advance does not prejudice his lien (Re Harvey’s Estate [page 71] (1886) 17 LR Ir 65), nor is the lien lost by suing the client for the costs: Re Atkin’s Estate [1894] 1 IR 225. See also 13.33. The lien will only be lost if the security taken is inconsistent with the lien. Inconsistency here means that there is some feature of the security which is incompatible with the lien, Clifford Harris & Co v Solland International Ltd [2005] 2 All ER 334. The lien will not be lost if documents are removed from the solicitor’s office without consent (Mason v Morley (1865) 11 Jur (NS) 459; Carter v Carter (1855) 55 LJ Ch 230; Frontmond Pty Ltd v Rodgers (1993) 6 BPR 13,112) or if the documents are delivered for a limited, specific purpose with the intention of maintaining the lien (Albermarle Supply Co Ltd v Hind and Co [1928] 1 KB 307; Caldwell v Sumpters [1972] 1 Ch 478); and see (Ly Ty Tran Cao; Ex parte Dixon v Ly Ty Tran Cao (1995) 62 FCR 432) where it was held that a court order requiring production of the documents to a trustee in bankruptcy did not amount to any voluntary and unconditional parting with possession in the relevant sense. See also Hammerstone Pty Ltd v Lewis [1994] 2 Qd R 267 for a discussion of the authorities as to whether a lien may be lost (strictly and in practical effect) as a result of inspection of the

documents. A judgment creditor or other person with security over the fund without notice of the lien will usually be entitled to the fund in priority to the solicitor: Blunden v Desart (1842) 2 Dru & War 405 at 427-8; Gilshenan & Luton v Commissioner of Taxation [1984] 1 Qd R 199. A solicitor’s lien will not prevail over claims by a judgment creditor to garnishee the solicitor’s client: Hough v Edwards (1856) 26 LJ Ch 54.

Substitute security 2.38 Most modern courts are empowered to order that liens be discharged on proper substitute security being given. In NSW, s 74 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 and s 728 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 confer this authority on the Supreme Court. Additionally, there is power in equity to make such an order, Re Galland (1885) 31 Ch D 296. Usually, the lien will be lifted if there is a payment into court of the amount claimed by the solicitor or a proper substitute security is provided: Gamlen Chemical Co (UK) Ltd v Rochem Ltd [1980] 1 WLR 614; [1980] 1 All ER 1049 (CA); Jankowski v Mastoris (1995) 7 BPR 14,589.

Persons affected by solicitor’s lien 2.39 The lien binds those persons only by or on whose behalf the solicitor was property employed (Re Rapid Road Transit Co Ltd [1909] 1 Ch 96) and persons claiming under them. For this purpose, trustees of a marriage settlement made by the client are not persons claiming under him and the solicitor has no lien against them (Re Lawrance; Bowker v Austin [1894] 1 Ch 556), though the contrary was held in Re Gregson (1858) 26 Beav 87; 53 ER 829. A solicitor has a lien on a debenture trust deed as against the trustees and the debenture holders, notwithstanding the costs were incurred before the execution of the deed: Re Dee Estates Ltd [1911] 2 Ch 85. A solicitor will not lose his right of lien in respect of costs incurred by the client merely because he accepts a retainer from persons claiming under them: General Share Trust Co v Chapman (1876) 1 CPD 771. A solicitor cannot obtain a lien on books which under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ought to be kept at a company’s registered office: Re Anglo-

Maltese Hydraulic Dock Co (1885) 54 LJ Ch 730; Re Capital Fire Insurance Assoc (1883) 24 Ch D 408. [page 72]

Lien only to extent of client’s interest 2.40 The lien is binding to the extent only of the client’s interest in the deeds, or in the property to which they relate: Hollis v Claridge (1813) 4 Taunt 807; 128 ER 549; Bell v Taylor (1836) 8 Sim 216; 59 ER 87. In other words, it gives against third parties no higher right than the client has: Rath v M’Mullan [1916] 1 IR 349. This rule excludes from the right to a lien: the solicitor of a tenant for life, though employed by him in matters relating to the estate, as against the remainderman (Ex parte Nesbitt (1805) 2 Sch & Lef 279; Davies v Vernon (1844) 6 QB 443; 115 ER 169; Lightfoot v Keane (1836) 1 M & W 745; 150 ER 634); the solicitor of one entitled to a part of a charge as against the other owners of the charge (Molesworth v Robbins (1845) 2 Jo & Lat 358); the solicitor of a partnership firm as against the private deed of one of the partners (Turner v Deane (1849) 3 Ex 836; 154 ER 1083); the solicitor of the official liquidator of a public company upon the proceedings and documents relating to the winding-up: Re Union Cement and Brick Co; Ex parte Pulbrook (1896) 4 Ch App 627. The solicitor of an executor has a lien upon the deeds of the testator for the executor’s costs of the suit, unless the executor is indebted to the testator’s estate: Turner v Letts (1855) 7 De GM & G 243; 44 ER 95. Similarly the lien of the solicitor is subject to any equities to which the deeds were subject in the hands of the client when the solicitor received them, although he had no notice thereof (Marsh v Bathoe (1744) Ridg Cas temp Hardwicke 256; 27 ER 822; Pelly v Wathen (1851) 1 De GM & G 16; 42 ER 457; Smith v Chichester (1842) 2 Dru & War 393; Re Llewellin [1891] 3 Ch 145; Sawyers v Kyte (1870) 1 VR 94 at 97; McLeish v Palmer (1921) 22 SR (NSW) 53 at 57; and see Dixon v Ly Ty Tran Cao (Federal Court of Australia, Beazley J, 10 April 1995, unreported), and is subject to any interests acquired by other persons as to costs incurred after the acquisition of their interests: Blunden v Desart (1842) 2 Dru & War 405.

The interest of a subsequent judgment creditor is a future interest within this rule (Blunden v Desart) and so, it would seem, is the interest of a trustee in bankruptcy of the client after the commission of an act of bankruptcy on which the client is adjudicated bankrupt: see and consider Re Pollitt; Ex parte Minor [1893] 1 QB 455. The lien will not rise against the owner of prior equities, though the costs have been partly incurred for his benefit, unless he actually employed the solicitor: Pelly v Wathen, above. However, the solicitor of a company can have a lien for costs incurred after the creation of a floating charge, but before the appointment of a receiver: Brunton v Electrical Engineering Corp [1892] 1 Ch 434.

Mortgagee’s solicitor 2.41 The rule that the lien binds only the solicitor’s own client excludes any lien in favour of a mortgagee’s solicitor on deeds of the mortgagor: Barratt v Gough-Thomas [1951] Ch 242. This is so whether the deeds have come to his hands for examination in view of a proposed mortgage, although the proposed mortgagor has promised to pay the costs of investigation of title; for the solicitor was employed by the proposed lender, and the borrower’s promise raised no privity between him and the solicitor: Pratt v Vizard (1833) 5 B & Ad 808; 110 ER 989. As to the mortgagor’s liability for costs to the lender, see Wales v Carr [1902] 1 Ch 860. Similarly, where the mortgagor delivers the deeds to his own solicitor so that he may obtain a loan or transfer, the solicitor cannot hold them against the mortgagee, by whom he was not employed (Hutchinson v Joyce (1836) 2 Jo Ex Ir 122), irrespective of whether the mortgage has been completed. In the latter case the solicitor is in practice paid out of the advance; but if this has not been done, he must look to the lender for payment, and there is no lien on the deeds as against the [page 73] mortgagor: Pratt v Vizard, above; Lawson v Dickenson (1724) 8 Mod 306; 88 ER 218; see, however, Re Wright [1906] Tas LR 1. It has been held that the mortgagee’s solicitor in possession of the deeds may hold them against a purchaser subject to the mortgage, for costs due in respect of the mortgage whether payable by the mortgagor or mortgagee, for

the purchaser should ascertain by whom the deeds are held before paying his purchase money: Ogle v Story (1833) 4 B & Ad 735; 110 ER 632, discussed and distinguished in Re Llewellin [1891] 3 Ch 145. The mortgagee’s solicitor cannot, after reconveyance (or even after discharge of the mortgage without reconveyance) hold the deeds as against the mortgagor as security for the mortgagee’s costs, because the mortgagee cannot, by handing the deeds to his solicitor, create a new lien against the mortgagor in respect of his own debt: Wakefield v Newbon (1844) 6 QB 276; 115 ER 107; Plumtre v O’Dell (1838) 1 Ir Eq R 113; Re Llewellin, above; Pelly v Wathen (1851) 1 De GM & G 16; 42 ER 457; and Franicevich v Strong [1997] 1 NZLR 460.

Solicitor for both parties 2.42 When the same solicitor acts for both parties, he holds the deeds, after completion, for the mortgagee; and loses his lien upon them for costs incurred on behalf of the mortgagor, unless it was expressly reserved: Re Snell (1877) 6 Ch D 105; Re Mason and Taylor (1878) 10 Ch D 729; Re Nicholson; Ex parte Quin (1883) 49 LT 811; and Franicevich v Strong [1997] 1 NZLR 460. But the mere fact that a solicitor acts for mortgagor and second mortgagee in a redemption suit against the first mortgagee does not disentitle him to a charge on the property for the costs of both these parties: see Macfarlane v Lister (1887) 37 Ch D 88. So, even where he would have a lien, or a right to a charge under the Solicitors Act 1860 (UK) for the costs of a redemption action, he may, by his conduct in assenting to an hypothecation of any balance which may become payable to his client, estop himself from claiming his lien or charge: Macfarlane v Lister. He retains it, however, as against the mortgagor and persons claiming under him: Re Messenger; Ex parte Calvert (1876) 3 Ch D 317. In the case of a deed the trusts of which provide for the costs of preparing it, the solicitor can obtain payment under such trusts irrespective of any lien: Worrall v Harford (1802) 8 Ves 4; 32 ER 250; see also Foster v Esley (1881) 19 Ch D 518 and Strickland v Symons (1884) 26 Ch D 245, and compare Re Sadd (1865) 34 Beav 650; 55 ER 786. Where the mortgagor obtained the deeds from the mortgagee and placed them in his solicitor’s hands to enable

him to sell in fraud of the mortgagee, it was held that the lien only covered the costs of the particular sale; since to extend it to general costs would be to enable the solicitor to profit by the fraud of his client: Young v English (1843) 7 Beav 10; 49 ER 965. As to the difficult questions which may arise where title deeds are in the custody of a solicitor who has acted for both the mortgagor and mortgagee and subsequently becomes the executor of the mortgagee, see Barratt v Gough-Thomas [1945] 2 All ER 650.

Documents required in litigation 2.43 In accordance with the rule that the special purpose for which a document is deposited limits the lien, the lien which the solicitor has in general upon documents delivered to him for the purpose of conducting a suit (see Balch v Symes (1823) Turn & Russ 87; 37 ER 1028 per Lord Eldon) is limited by the obligation to deliver them up if they are required for the purposes of the suit: Baker v Henderson (1830) 4 Sim 27; 58 ER 11. But he may retain such documents as he has received for general purposes, as well as for the purposes of the suit, if he had a lien thereon antecedent to the [page 74] rights of the persons claiming in the suit: Warburton v Edge (1839) 9 Sim 508; 59 ER 454. Where, however, he has ceased to be solicitor pendente lite, he will be ordered to deposit the documents with an officer of the court for a period, in order that the client may have access to them: Ex parte Scheyer (1888) 52 JP 183; affirmed, see note [1888]WN 136 (UK). If a client’s property is in danger of loss by the detention of papers, it seems the court will order delivery on the application of the client so that the property may be secured and brought into court: Richards v Platel (1841) Cr & Ph 79; 41 ER 419. The lien may not be exercised so as to embarrass the conduct of a suit, or to interfere with the management of an estate which is being administered by the court, or to intercept the completion of an order of the court: Belaney v French (1873) LR 8 Ch App 918; Re Boughton (1883) 23 Ch D 169; Gerty v

Mann (1891) 29 LR Ir 7; Hutchinson v Norwood (1886) 54 LT 842; Re Hawkes; Ackerman v Lockhart [1898] 2 Ch 1 and Re Conroy (1990) 103 FLR 233; but compare Re Capital Fire Insurance Association (1883) 24 Ch D 408; Boden v Hensby [1892] 1 Ch 101. In Re Davies (1843) 12 LJ Ch 456, committees of a lunatic were authorised to discharge a solicitor’s lien over title deeds in order to raise further money on the property. In Dunn v Dunn (1855) 1 Jur (NS) 122, deeds were produced to the court in proceedings brought in the name of an infant. On attaining majority, the infant repudiated the proceedings, which meant that they were incompetent from the beginning. The court ordered that deeds produced to it for the purpose of the proceedings be returned to the persons producing them free from any liens for costs that might have otherwise attached. The claimant will be declared entitled to a lien on any fund in court, or to be paid in the cause, for the amount of his bill of costs (Clifford v Turrill (1848) 2 De G & Sm 1; 64 ER 1; and see Benyon v Amphlett (1862) 8 Jur (NS) 759), unless the debt is statute-barred and the client claims the benefit of the statute: Re Carter (1885) 53 LT 630.

Production in a stranger’s litigation 2.44 The lien of the solicitor is only a right between his client and himself (Furlong v Howard (1804) 2 Sch & Lef 115; Ley v Barlow (1848) 1 Ex 800; 154 ER 340; Lockett v Cary (1864) 10 Jur (NS) 144); and if the client is bound to produce a deed for the benefit of a third person, so also must the solicitor, notwithstanding his lien. But although, for the purposes of evidence on subpoena, production of a deed will be ordered on behalf of a person whose interests are affected by it and who is not liable to pay the debt in respect of which the lien is claimed, such an order will not extend to delivery, or be made so as otherwise to prejudice the lien: Brassington v Brassington (1823) 1 Sim & St 455; 57 ER 182; Hope v Liddell (1855) 20 Beav 438; 52 ER 672; affirmed 7 De GM & G 331; 44 ER 129; Re Cameron’s Coalbrooke Rail Co (1857) 25 Beav 1; 53 ER 535; see Vale v Oppert (1875) LR 10 Ch 340. Where the solicitor’s lien is collateral to the cause, he must be served with a subpoena duces tecum: Busk v Lewis (1821) 6 Madd 29; 56 ER 1000; see

Fowler v Fowler (1881) 50 LJ Ch 686. The person who is liable to pay the debt, claiming the deed for his own purposes, may be denied access to it until payment of the claim: see Brassington v Brassington; Hope v Liddell; and Re Cameron’s Coalbrooke Rail Co, all above. However, the lien will not be a protection against the liability to produce a deed which it is the object of the suit to impeach: Balch v Symes (1823) Turn & Russ 87; 37 ER 1028; and see Beckford v Wildman (1810) 16 Ves 438; 33 ER 1050; Fencott v Clarke (1833) 6 Sim 8; 58 ER 498; Brougham v Cauvin (1868) 16 WR 688. [page 75]

Discharge of lien to enable production 2.45 Where a person is ordered to produce documents in the hands of his solicitor, who claims a lien upon them, the client must discharge the lien, and produce the deeds: Ex parte Shaw (1816) Jac 270; 37 ER 853; see Liddell v Norton (1853) Kay, xi; 69 ER 317. And if there is a difficulty in getting possession of them — for example if the person on whom the order is made is bankrupt and unable to discharge the claim — the order will still be made, with liberty to apply to the court for relief if it cannot be obeyed (Rodick v Gandell (1847) 10 Beav 270; 50 ER 586), or the court will from time to time enlarge the period for production, so as to enable the party to recover the possession of the deeds (Goodchap v Weaving (1853) 16 Jur 586), as in the case of an executor whose books are in a distant country: Freeman v Fairlie (1812) 3 Mer 29 at 44; 36 ER 12 at 17-18.

Deeds belonging to a trust 2.46 Goodchap v Weaving (1853) 16 Jur 586 is authority for the proposition that the course mentioned in 2.45 will be followed where deeds belonging to a trust have come to the solicitor’s hands, and he claims to hold them subject to a lien. But if a solicitor receives documents with notice that they belong to a trust, he incurs an immediate liability to those for whom his client was trustee, and is subject to the same remedies as the trustee himself for recovering possession of the deeds: Francis v Francis (1854) 2 De GM & G 73; 42 ER 798. In such a case it seems that the court has jurisdiction upon

petition to order delivery of the deeds; but in some cases, for example where the deeds are not in the solicitor’s hands by reason of his employment as trustee but in some other way, and without notice of the trust, it may be necessary to make the solicitor a party to the action: Goodchap v Weaving, above, and see Rider v Jones (1843) 2 Y & CCC 329; 63 ER 145.

Production in winding up 2.47 After an order has been made for winding up a company, the court may require any officer of the company, or any person whom it is empowered to summon for the purpose of giving information as to the affairs of the company, to produce any books and papers in his custody or power relating to the company, without prejudice to any lien claimed by him thereon; and the court has jurisdiction to determine all questions relating to such lien: Corporations Act s 483. The solicitors of the company are liable under this provision to produce documents relating to the company on the motion of the liquidator: Re South Essex Estuary & Reclamation Co (1869) 4 Ch App 215, though see Re Capital Fire Insurance Assoc (1883) 24 Ch D 408 and Re Hawkes; Ackerman v Lockhart [1898] 2 Ch 1. A valid lien existing at the date of the winding up order will not be defeated: Re Rapid Road Transit Co Ltd [1909] 1 Ch 96; Harrison v Lederman [1978] VR 590 and see Re Oxford etc Railway Co (1849) 1 De G & Sm 728; 63 ER 1270. Notwithstanding a claim to a lien on documents of a bankrupt for work done before the bankruptcy, the solicitor must produce them for the inspection of the trustee: Re Toleman & England; Ex parte Bramble (1880) 13 Ch D 885; see Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 81.

Solicitor’s lien over fruits of litigation 2.48 A solicitor has a special type of lien over the fruits of litigation. This type of ‘lien’ may manifest itself in two ways. First, it may be that the solicitor has actually collected moneys as a result of litigation etc. Second, the solicitor having nothing in his possession may know that a third party is due to pay the client money (usually damages and costs) as a result of the solicitor’s efforts. This second situation is considered in 2.47 ff. The history of the first type of lien is traced by Jordan CJ in Ex parte Patience (1940) 40 SR (NSW) 96 at 102 ff: see also Birchall v Pugin (1875)

LR 10 CP 397; Re Born [page 76] [1900] 2 Ch 433; Shirlaw v Taylor (1991) 31 FCR 222; 102 ALR 551; Re Statewide Computer Services Pty Ltd [1992] 2 Qd R 647; Fairfold Properties Ltd v Exmouth Docks Co Ltd (No 2) [1993] Ch 196; and Carew Counsel Pty Ltd v French (2002) 4 VR 172 (CA). In Firth v Centrelink (2002) 55 NSWLR 451 at 462 ff, Campbell J summarised the basic principles established by the authorities which, is set out below augmented by reference to some later authority: 1. The solicitor’s right exists over money recovered through obtaining judgment in litigation, and also over money recovered through the settlement of litigation: Carew Counsel Pty Ltd v French (2002) 166 FLR 460 at 476 [33]; Roam Australia Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd (Federal Court of Australia, Lehane J, 22 September 1997, unreported) at 4. 2. The solicitor’s right exists over both the amount of a judgment in favour of the client, and the amount of an order for costs in favour of the client: Re Fuld, Decd (No 4) [1968] P 727 at 736; Twigg v Keady (1996) 135 FLR 257 at 266-7 per Finn J; Re Blake; Clutterbuck v Bradford [1945] Ch 61 (a case concerning a statutory charging order rather than a lien arising in equity’s exclusive jurisdiction, but dependent on the same principle as the equitable right). 3. It exists over money which is in the possession of the solicitor, and also over money which is in court (Re Meter Cabs Ltd [1911] 2 Ch 557 at 562) and money which is owed to the client but not paid into court (Re Fuld, Decd (No 4), above; Re De Groot [2001] 2 Qd R 359 at 375). 4. The solicitor need not be still acting for the client at the time that the money was recovered: Re Fuld, Decd (No 4), above; Kelso v McCulloch (SC (NSW), Young J, 24 October 1994, unreported); Twigg v Keady, above (at 289) per Kay J; Roam Australia Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd, above (at 4).

5. For the right to arise it must be shown that there is a sufficient causal link between the solicitor’s exertions and the recovery of the fund of money: Roam Australia Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd, above (at 4-5); Carew Counsel Pty Ltd v French, above (at 476 [33]). The fund must have been ‘produced by the industry of the solicitor’. Grogan v Orr [2001] NSWCA 114 [62] per Sheller JA; Jackson v Richards [2005] NSWSC 630; 12 BPR 23091 at 23,099 [47]. This is not an exacting standard. 6. The quantum of money for which the solicitor has the equitable right is the amount which is properly owing to the solicitor by the client, whether that amount be ascertained by taxation of a bill of costs, or assessment, or pursuant to a costs agreement: Roam Australia Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd, above (at 4). In relation to those situations where taxation is necessary to ascertain the quantum owing to the solicitor, the solicitor’s right exists in the fund prior to the occurrence of the taxation (Johns v Cassel (1993) 6 BPR 13,134 at 13,136 per Hodgson J; Twigg v Keady, above (at 289) per Kay J; Re Fuld, Decd (No 4), above (at 740); Roam Australia Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd, above (at 6)). 7. The solicitor’s equitable right exists before the court is asked to intervene to protect it; it ‘arises immediately upon the recovery of monies through the exertions of the solicitor’: Carew Counsel Pty Ltd v French, above (at 476 [33]); if the lien is over the proceeds of an order for costs, it comes into existence at the time of making of that order for costs: Philippa Power & Associates v Primrose Couper Cronin Rudkin [1997] 2 Qd R 266; Kison v Papasian (1994) 61 SASR 567. If the lien is over the proceeds of a settlement, it arises when the settlement agreement is entered into: Re De Groot, above (at 368). (These statements concern when the lien comes into existence as an item of present property — they are not concerned with the ability of the solicitor to deal with the rights under the lien as future property before the fund is in existence.) [page 77] 8. The right of the solicitor is one which the solicitor can enforce against the client, entitling the solicitor to an injunction to prevent the payment of the fund to the client without notice to the solicitor until such time as the

quantum of the solicitor’s entitlement to be paid from the fund is ascertained: Re Fuld, Decd (No 4), above. If the quantum of the solicitor’s entitlement has been ascertained, the solicitor is entitled to an order that the amount of his or her entitlement be paid to him or her from the fund, notwithstanding opposition from the client: Leamey v Heath [2001] NSWSC 1095 (Campbell J). 9. The right can also be enforced against people other than the client in certain circumstances. When the money recovered takes the form of a debt owed to the client, which has been assigned, the right of the solicitor will prevail over the rights of an assignee of the debt save where the assignee is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice: Re De Groot, above. 10. If the client is a company which goes into liquidation, the solicitor is entitled, in relation to costs arising from work done before the start of the liquidation, to claim the full amount of the costs from the fund, and is not required to prove in the liquidation: Re Born; Curnock v Born [1900] 2 Ch 433; Re Meter Cabs Ltd, above. This has the same practical effect as enforcing the right against the other creditors of the company. The solicitor’s lien attaches to property recovered through his exertions, even if the actual recovery occurs after the client goes into liquidation: North West Construction Co Pty Ltd v Marian [1965] WAR 205 at 211. 11. Likewise, if the client is a natural person who becomes bankrupt, the solicitor is not required to prove in the bankruptcy for the amount of costs incurred, but can recover the costs from the debt which is the result of his efforts: Guy v Churchill (1887) 35 Ch D 489; Worrell v Power & Power (1993) 46 FCR 214. The trustee in bankruptcy takes that debt subject to the equitable right of the solicitor to be paid his costs, and if the amount of the solicitor’s costs exceeds the value of the debt, the debt does not vest in the trustee in bankruptcy at all; if the client is discharged from bankruptcy he can sue to enforce the debt as it never was property divisible among the creditors, and any amount that the client then receives is also subject to the solicitor’s lien: Kison v Papasian, above. 12. If the client is the liquidator of a company in liquidation, the solicitor’s lien over property recovered through his or her exertions is to be satisfied before the statutory order of priorities for distribution of the property of

the corporation comes into effect: Jeffcott Holdings Ltd v Paior (1995) 18 ACSR 213; 13 ACLC 1798. 13. If the money recovered is held in the solicitor’s trust account, and the solicitor is served with a garnishee notice, issued to enforce a debt which the client owes to another person, the garnishee notice is not effective to attach the money in the trust account, to the extent that the solicitor has a lien over it: Philippa Power & Associates v Primrose Couper Cronin Rudkin, above. Likewise if the money recovered is held by a third party, and a garnishee notice is served on that third party, the solicitor’s lien prevails over the garnishee notice: Dallow v Garrold; Ex parte Adams (1884) 14 QBD 543. 14. The lien extends to cover the costs of enforcing the lien: Oliveri v PM Sulcs & Associates Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 590; (2013) 16 BPR 28590. Rein J followed these guidelines in AMC Commercial Cleaning (NSW) Pty Ltd v Coade [2013] NSWSC 192; (2013) 16 BPR 28584 where he also said that the amount of the judgment recovered in relation to the costs incurred was an irrelevant factor. The Full Federal Court has said that the decision in Patience, Ex parte; Makinson v The Minister (1940) 40 SR (NSW) 96, ‘indicates that the lien involves more than a personal right of the solicitor to approach the Court to obtain a charging order, and that the lien [page 78] arises when the judgment for costs is obtained, and before there has been a taxation of the costs. The assistance of the Court is invoked not to create rights but to enforce them’: Worrell v Power & Power, above, at 224. The lien holds good against anyone: Re Meter Cabs Ltd, above (at 561) quoting Lord Romilly MR in Re Massey; Re Freehold Land and Brickmaking Co (1870) LR 9 Eq 367. Thus the equitable right which a solicitor has to be paid costs and disbursements from the fund which his efforts have recovered, is a kind of proprietary interest in that fund. The fact that the right of the solicitor can survive an insolvency administration of the client and is (as Sir

Frederick Jordan CJ held in Ex parte Patience, above) assignable, are strong indicia of it being a right of a proprietary nature. Although in Re Massey, above, the solicitor’s interest was referred to as a common law lien, more recent cases have referred to the lien as equitable. Thus in Twigg v Keady, above (at 259), Fogarty J described it as ‘an equitable interest in the fund’. In Color Point Pty Ltd v Markby’s Communication Group Pty Ltd (Federal Court of Australia, Weinberg J, 27 November 1998, unreported) at 23, Weinberg J said that the equitable right ‘confers upon the solicitor an equitable interest in the fruits of that litigation’.

Solicitor’s right to attach funds 2.49 In this type of case, the use of the word ‘lien’ is to some extent a misnomer (James Bibbey Ltd v Woods [1949] 2 KB 449 at 453) because the right does not have the characteristics of a lien; see also Mercer v Graves (1872) LR 7 QB 499 at 503. The solicitor merely has a right to claim the equitable interference of the court so that a judgment obtained by the solicitor’s client or some other property which has come into the solicitor’s hands will stand as security for costs: Barker v St Quentin (1844) 12 M & W 441 at 451; 152 ER 1270 at 1274; Mason v Mason [1933] P 199; Ex parte Patience; Makinson v The Minister (1940) 40 SR (NSW) 96; Re Fuld Decd (No 4) [1968] P 727 at 736; Shand v M J Atkinson Ltd [1966] NZLR 551; Worrell v Power (1993) 118 ALR 237; Re H & W Wallace Ltd [1994] 1 NZLR 235; see also Re Allied Glass Manufacturers Ltd (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 409 at 425. The lien will extend over all property except real property: Re H & W Wallace Ltd, above, at 237. As to this exception, see Shaw v Neale (1858) 6 HLC 580; 10 ER 1422. However, the lien will be maintainable against the proceeds of a resumption claim (Ex parte Patience, above) and the proceeds of sale of real estate where a wife is ordered by the Family Court to sell the real estate and to keep a percentage of the proceeds: Johns v Cassel (1993) 6 BPR 13,134; FLC 79,816. The most usual form of property becoming available for the solicitor’s lien other than documents is the fund of money paid or payable under a compromise, a judgment, or as the proceeds of execution; see, for example, Davies v Lowndes (1847) 3 CB 808 at 829; 136 ER 324 at 332; Re Bank of

Hindustan, China and Japan Ltd; Ex parte Smith (1867) LR 3 Ch App 125; Emden v Carte (1881) 19 Ch D 311; Ross v Buxton (1889) Ch D 190 at 195-6; Hall v Hall [1891] P 302; Campbell v Campbell [1941] 1 All ER 274; Ex parte Patience, above. See also Stewart v Strevens [1976] 2 NSWLR 321; Johns v Law Society of NSW [1982] 2 NSWLR 1 at 20; Re Jalmoon Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 264; Bowen v Wakim (SC (NSW), Smart J, 27 August 1990, unreported) and Johns v Cassel, above. The lien continues notwithstanding that the client has terminated the solicitor’s retainer before the fruits of the litigation are received: Kelso v McCulloch [1994] ACL Rep 185 NSW 31. In Carew Counsel Pty Ltd v French (2002) 4 VR 1172 (CA) a solicitor claimed an equitable lien in respect of costs incurred between the date of settlement of [page 79] the litigation and the date when the solicitor’s retainer was terminated. On appeal it was held that the work undertaken after settlement was outside the course of collecting the proceeds of settlement and so did not support a lien of this particular kind. If an order for costs is made in litigation and an act of bankruptcy is afterwards committed by the client, but before the solicitor collects his costs from the opponent, the solicitor will retain the money as against the trustee in bankruptcy because the lien arose when the order for costs was made: Worrell v Power & Power (1993) 118 ALR 237. See too Re H & W Wallace Ltd [1994] 1 NZLR 235, where part of the costs were paid before liquidation and the solicitor’s claim for lien of the judgment debt for the balance was upheld. The lien also extends to cover the costs of making the application to the court to declare the lien: Read v Dipper (1795) 6 TR 361; 101 ER 595; Re Hill (1886) 33 Ch D 266; Re Meter Cabs Ltd [1911] 2 Ch 557; Re Allied Glass Manufacturers (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 409 at 427; Johns v Cassel, above; Re H & W Wallace Ltd [1994] 1 NZLR 235 at 241. If money is paid into a solicitor’s trust account, the provision of legislation

governing the operation of such accounts usually has the effect of denying a lien: Official Assignee of Reeves & Williams v Dorrington [1918] NZLR 702; Stewart v Strevens [1976] 2 NSWLR 321; Johns v Law Society of NSW [1982] 2 NSWLR 1 at 18-21; Gilshenan & Luton v Commissioner of Taxation [1984] 1 Qd R 199; Kirk v Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 19 FCR 530; and WFM Motors Pty Ltd v Maydwell (1994) 6 BPR 13,381. Where the money is to be paid to a third party, the solicitor must give notice to the third party, but he may do so even while the lien is inchoate before the money is received: Twigg v Kung (2002) 55 NSWLR 485. Where the third party has paid the money to a fourth party and the solicitor proceeds against the fourth party, he or she must demonstrate that that party had clear notice of the solicitor’s claim: Firth v Centrelink (No 2) (2002) 55 NSWLR 494.

Examples 2.50 In Re Sullivan v Pearson; Ex parte Morrison (1868) LR 4 QB 153, a solicitor obtained a verdict for the plaintiff, but this was set aside on appeal and a new trial ordered. The plaintiff and the defendant then settled the case. The solicitor was not entitled to any part of the settlement monies. An example of liens of a case where the solicitor has collected the fund is provided by Commissioner of Taxation v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1992) 36 FCR 314; 109 ALR 159 (on appeal (1993) 45 FCR 284; 117 ALR 61) where a solicitor’s costs in obtaining damages for a personal injury on behalf of a taxpayer were a lien over the fund which took priority over the statutory claim of the Commissioner of Taxation. In Doyles Construction Lawyers v Harsands Pty Ltd (SC (NSW), McLelland CJ in Eq, 24 December 1996, unreported) solicitors had acted in certain District Court proceedings. The proceedings were settled by an agreement negotiated directly between the parties. The solicitors were not involved in that negotiated settlement. The agreement provided for payment to the solicitors’ client of $40,000. Shortly after the agreement was made, but before any payment was made pursuant to that agreement, the solicitors ceased to act. His Honour observed: It was submitted that there was no sufficient causal link between work that Doyles had done in relation to the proceedings and the ultimate settlement, since the March settlement agreement

was negotiated directly between the parties and Doyles had ceased to act before the ultimate settlement was negotiated. In my opinion it is unnecessary for Doyles to demonstrate that the settlement came about as the result of specific efforts by them. According to the statement of principle [in Patience] it is sufficient to give rise to the equitable right that the settlement

[page 80] resulting in payment to the client came about as a result of the legal proceedings and that the solicitor had acted for the client in those proceedings, this being treated as a sufficient causal link.

In Roam Australia Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd [1997] FCA 480, Lehane J expressed some reservations about the width of this statement by McLelland CJ in Eq and observed that there would not necessarily be an entitlement in favour of solicitors to the equitable interest in the judgment or settlement proceeds commensurate with the amount they are owed for costs and disbursements no matter how slight or fleeting their participation may have been. As his Honour noted: In each case, in my view, it must be a question whether the requisite causal link is established, whether the judgment or compromise is, on the evidence, to be regarded as brought about (or partially brought about) by the efforts of the solicitors… Where solicitors have been actively involved over a considerable period in acting for a party to successful litigation, the conclusion is likely to follow that the solicitors have been instrumental in obtaining the result, or that the result is (at least in part) due to the solicitors’ efforts.

See also Carew Counsel Pty Ltd v French (2002) 4 VR 172; 190 ALR 690 and AMC Commercial Cleaning (NSW) Pty Ltd v Coade [2013] NSWSC 192; (2013) 16 BPR 28584. In Australian Receivables Ltd v Tekitu Pty Ltd (2012) 260 FLR 243; [2012] NSWSC 170, a solicitor established a lien over a successful cross claim.

Enforcement of the lien 2.51 Where a solicitor has a lien in respect of the fruits of litigation the lien is enforced by applying to a court with equitable jurisdiction. The principle is that ‘[t]he parties should not run away with the fruits of the cause without satisfying the legal demands of his attorney, by whose industry, and in many instances at whose expense, those fruits are obtained’: Read v Dupper (1795)

6 TR 361 at 362; 101 ER 595 at 596. See also Bowen v Wakim (SC (NSW), Smart J, 27 August 1990, unreported). In Johns v Cassel (1993) 6 BPR 13,134; [1993] FLC 79,816 it was held that the solicitor must show that there is a significant risk that the costs will not be paid unless an order is made enforcing his lien. See also Mercer v Graves (1872) LR 7 QB 499 at 503; H S Bird & Co v The Ship ‘Karu’ (1927) 27 SR (NSW) 476 at 479; Patience, Ex parte; Makinson v The Minister (1940) 40 SR (NSW) 96. There is no necessity to proceed to taxation before making an application to enforce the lien: Read v Dupper (1795) 6 TR 361; 101 ER 595; Re Allied Glass Manufacturers Ltd (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 409 at 427; Johns v Cassel, above. The form of the order will vary on the circumstances of each case. The court may consider it appropriate to grant an injunction restraining the client from receiving the fund or preventing the paying party from making a payment except subject to conditions which will protect the solicitor: Hobson v Shearwood (1845) 8 Beav 486; 50 ER 191; Lloyd v Jones (1879) 40 LT 514; Re Fuld, deceased (No 4) [1968] P 727. Alternatively the court may declare that the solicitor is entitled to a charge on the property: Campbell v Campbell [1941] 1 All ER 274. If the solicitor obtains payment of a debt that was otherwise statute-barred, his lien will still exist against the fund: Higgins v Scott (1831) 2 B & Ad 413; 109 ER 1196.

E. Liquidators’ Liens Liquidators’ liens 2.52 Liquidators not infrequently become involved in insolvency problems which involve companies and trusts and property in various people’s names as legal owner, subject to legal or equitable mortgages and charges. A question arises as to whether the [page 81] liquidator has or should be given a lien over the trust or charged assets for his or her costs and expenses.

By analogy with a trustee (see 2.18), a liquidator may have a lien over the relevant assets. It must be noted that in the 19th century it was thought that a liquidator who spent money to secure a fund had no claim against a mortgage (Re Asphaltic Wood Pavement Co (1883) 30 Ch D 216). However, cases such as Re Berkeley Applegate (Investment Consultants) Ltd [1989] BCLC 28 suggest a different result. See also Cadorange Pty Ltd v Tanga Holdings Pty Ltd (1990) 20 NSWLR 26. A provisional liquidator upon his discharge will normally have a lien to secure his costs and expenses: Booth v Thomson [1972] SLT 141; Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Samalot Enterprises Pty Ltd (1986) 5 NSWLR 227 at 230-1; Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Almona Pty Ltd (1985) 6 ACLC 84; Shirlaw v Taylor (1991) 31 FCR 222 at 231-2; 102 ALR 551 at 560-1. The provisional liquidator is entitled to satisfy his equitable lien out of the assets in his hands before accounting for the remaining balance to the company: Re Joseph Phillips Ltd [1964] 1 All ER 441 at 444; [1964] 1 WLR 369 at 373. For an analogous situation last century in the case of an equitable lien over compensation money paid in respect of freeing slaves, see Morrison v Morrison (1855) 2 Sm & Giff 564; 65 ER 527. A receiver who is invalidly appointed, but improves the company’s property, will have an equitable lien good against a mortgagee: Re Universal Distributing Co Ltd (1933) 48 CLR 171; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Butterell (1994) 35 NSWLR 64 at 70-1; and see Scott v Nesbitt (1808) 14 Ves 438; 33 ER 589; Morrison v Morrison (1855) 2 Sm & Giff 564; 65 ER 527; and Shirlaw v Taylor (1991) 31 FCR 222; 102 ALR 551. The general rule is that a lien will be imposed for the special costs relating to the property concerned, but not for any part of the general costs of administering the liquidation: Re Regent’s Canal Ironworks Co (1875) 3 Ch D 411 at 427; Buchler v Talbot [2004] 2 AC 298; [2004] 1 All ER 1289 and see Pelonoy Pty Ltd v Donovan Oates Hannaford Mortgage Corp [2004] NSWSC 4. In Australian Securities and Investment Commission v John McKenny Consulting Pty Ltd (2002) 43 ASCR 458 the equitable lien of the liquidator attaching to the realisation of the assets in a winding up was given priority to the administrators’ statutory lien, the former having the better equity on the basis that it would be unconscionable for the administrators to benefit from the work of the liquidator.

[page 82]

Chapter 3

Mortgages of Land at Common Law A. Legal Mortgages Mortgages generally Legal mortgages of freehold land Legal mortgages of other interests in land Form of mortgage Mortgage as escrow B. Construction of Mortgages Construction as to the nature of the transaction Construction of the terms of the mortgage Mortgages employing wide language Recent examples of construction of all moneys clauses Mortgages with hair trigger clauses C. Contents of Mortgage Covenants for title Usual covenants Personal covenant to repay What is repayable Acceleration clauses Retardation clauses

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16

Interest Provisions for punctual payment of interest Covenant to repair Covenant to insure Covenants to pay mortgagee’s costs Covenant to pay rates and taxes Attornment clauses Mortgagor’s right to possession Covenants by the mortgagee D. Extent of the Security Fixtures Accretions Statutory accretion Alterations to mortgagor’s leasehold interests Relief against forfeiture

3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22 3.23 3.24 3.25 3.26 3.27 3.28 3.29 3.30

[page 83]

E. Custody of Deeds Mortgagee’s rights Production of deeds by mortgagee F. Variation of the Mortgage Generally Effecting the variation Effect on subsequent encumbrances G. Equitable Mortgages Mortgage by deposit of deeds Documents accompanying deposit Partial deposit of deeds

3.31 3.32 3.33 3.34 3.35 3.36 3.37 3.38

Co-owners Proof of intent to create equitable mortgage Documents remaining in debtor’s custody Property affected by the mortgage Debt secured by the mortgage Equitable mortgage by deposit and lien mutually exclusive Agreement to create mortgage Form of memorandum accompanying deposit Power of attorney Undertaking to execute legal mortgage Defective legal mortgage Title against trustee in bankruptcy H. Miscellaneous Strata titles Registration of mortgages Registration of mortgages by corporations Injunctions and actions at law Conversion

3.39 3.40 3.41 3.42 3.43 3.44 3.45 3.46 3.47 3.48 3.49 3.50 3.51 3.52 3.53 3.54 3.55

A. Legal Mortgages Mortgages generally 3.1 This chapter will deal with legal mortgages of land other property excepting mortgages of interests under the Torrens system. Torrens system mortgages are fully dealt with in Chapter 4. It would be unwise to assume that every principle stated in general words in this chapter is necessarily applicable to Torrens system mortgages, though often this will be the case.

Legal mortgages of freehold land

3.2 In the Australian states where land is not under the Torrens system, the usual method of mortgage of freehold land takes the form of a conveyance to the mortgagee with a requirement for reconveyance if the terms of the underlying loan transaction are carried out. Although it is true that this form of mortgage is similar to that used in England before 1926, there are some very real differences between the Australian practice and the English practice with respect to common law mortgages of land. [page 84] In England, it was fashionable to require the mortgagor to pay the moneys due under the mortgage to the mortgagee in an extremely short space of time, say six months. Once that period expired, any contractual or legal rights the mortgagor may have possessed ceased and the mortgagor merely had an equitable right, which has already been considered when discussing the term ‘equity of redemption’: see 1.14 and 1.15. In Australia, the mortgagor may have both contractual rights (or other legal rights) and equitable rights; this may be significant because the mortgagor will have proceedings available other than the mere equitable action to redeem the mortgage.

Legal mortgages of other interests in land 3.3 ‘Land’ includes easements, profits and other incorporeal hereditaments: see definition in NSW Act s 7, Victorian Act s 248. Such incorporeal hereditaments may be the subject of a mortgage. Generally, however, these rights will be mortgaged together with the land over which the right is enjoyed. Leaseholds may be mortgaged, though this is less common in Australia than in England. Mortgage of leasehold is made either by assignment of the term subject to a proviso for redemption, or by way of a sub-lease reserving to the mortgagor a nominal reversion out of the term. The sub-lease is usually for the balance of the term less one day. A mortgage by demise for a term concurrent with a term created by a first or other prior mortgage created a legal term: Re Moore & Hulm’s Contract [1912] 2 Ch 105. A mortgage in

either form was originally liable to destruction by forfeiture of the term for breach of covenant. Relief against forfeiture was later given by statute, originally in England by ss 210-212 of the Common Law Procedure Act 1852 and currently in New South Wales by s 73 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 and s 129 of the NSW Act, and by s 146 of the Victorian Act. If the whole term was assigned to the mortgagee, he became liable to be sued by the lessor for the rent and also on the covenants, whether or not he had entered into possession: Williams v Bosanquet (1819) 1 Bod & Bing 238; 129 ER 714. Accordingly, of the two methods, the usual practice was to mortgage by sub-lease, since the mortgagee thereby avoided direct liability to the lessor on the covenants in the lease. The mortgagor often declared that he held his nominal reversion or trust for the mortgagee or appointed the mortgagee as his attorney to convey it: see London and County Banking Co v Goddard [1897] 1 Ch 642; see also Bonner v Tottenham & Edmonton Permanent Investment Building Society [1899] 1 Ch 161. These devices ensured that the mortgagee could have the whole of the mortgagor’s interest vested in him if the need arose.

Form of mortgage 3.4 To take effect at law the mortgage must be by deed, to comply with the requirements of s 23B of the NSW Act and s 52 of the Victorian Act. A mortgage which fails to take effect as a legal mortgage because of some formal defect may nevertheless be valid as an equitable mortgage: see 3.49. In New South Wales, a mortgage of Old System land usually takes the form of a deed of conveyance in the form of Schedule 2 to the NSW Act. In Victoria a statutory form of deed of mortgage is provided in Schedule 8 to the Victorian Act. The conveyance includes a proviso for redemption and reconveyance and also covenants conditions and provisions which will govern the parties’ relationship. The covenants in the mortgage will almost always be given on the part of the mortgagor. These are discussed in 3.11–3.23. In some cases covenants may be given by the mortgagee: see 3.25. An example is where the loan is to be made by installments: see Murphy v Zamonex Pty Ltd (1993) 31 NSWLR 439, a case where the mortgagee was financially unable to make all the installments of a loan.

[page 85] In Queensland, unless a mortgage is by deed, it does not pick up the powers given in s 83(1)(a) of the Property Law Act 1974: Re J B Davies Enterprises Pty Ltd [1990] 2 Qd R 129, and see Sykes and Walker p 768, n 52.

Mortgage as escrow 3.5 An escrow is a deed delivered on the condition that it is not to take effect until the happening of some specified event. When that event happens, the deed takes effect as from the date of the original delivery but only for such purposes as are necessary to give efficacy to the transaction: Security Trust Co v The Royal Bank of Canada [1976] AC 503. See also Terrapin International Ltd v IRC [1976] 1 WLR 665; [1976] 2 All ER 461; Alan Estates Ltd v WG Stores Ltd [1982] Ch 511; Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Comptroller of Stamps [1985] VR 70; Manton v Parabolic Pty Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 361. There must be no obstacle to the deed taking effect on the happening of the specified event, thus where, in accordance with an oral agreement, a blank form of mortgage delivered by the borrower to the lender was to be completed and executed it was held that there was no escrow: Fisher v Westpac Banking Corporation (1993) 43 FCR 385. It will be rare that a mortgage will be delivered as an escrow. One recent instance is Wollam v Barclays Bank plc [1988] EGCS 22; 18 Fam Law (Eng) 381, where a husband gave a mortgage over the whole fee simple, intending that his wife should also sign. The wife declined to sign and Knox J in the English Chancery Division held that the husband was not bound. See also AIB Group (UK) plc v Hennelly Properties Ltd [2000] EGCS 63. Another possible instance is where a developer mortgages a site, the mortgage stipulating that the site will be developed. The mortgage will need to cover the possibility of development not taking place by allowing the lender to enter and complete the works himself. The same applies where the mortgage advance was offered on the terms that the borrower execute certain repairs to the property. In the absence of any covenant to execute the works or right of entry in the mortgage, the lender may be able to claim that the

mortgage deed was delivered in escrow, though it will rarely be advantageous to claim the ineffectiveness of the mortgage and the repayment of the advance. Another instance of delivery in escrow might be when a mortgage is delivered conditionally upon the discharge of an earlier mortgage.

B. Construction of Mortgages Construction as to the nature of the transaction 3.6 Whether a transaction is a mortgage or conveyance depends upon common sense, the fair construction of the documents from the actual language used and the evidence of the surrounding circumstances or factual matrix of the transaction: see 1.25 ff and Alderson v White (1858) 2 De G & J 97 at 105; 44 ER 924 at 928 and Prenn v Simmonds [1971] 3 All ER 327; [1971] 1 WLR 1381; Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337; Hayes Securities Ltd v Bambury [1991] 1 NZLR 304 at 307; Jageev Pty Ltd v Bank of New South Wales (SC (NSW), Sperling J, 26 March 1996, unreported) at BC9600343, pp 38–9); Ronan v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2000) 2 VR 531 (CA) at [52] (Ormiston and Batt JJA); Nunn v Wily (2001) 10 BPR 18,983, where Austin J said (at para 97) that: ‘The task of the Court is to ascertain the real intention of the parties to the transaction, looking beyond its written form to its real substance and object’; Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd (OCBC) v Malaysian Kuwaiti Investment Co (MKIC) and Aljade [2003] VSC 495 at [36] (Redlich J); and Creasy’s Grain Enterprises Pty Ltd v Clarke and Barwood Lawyers Colac Ltd [2004] VSC 77 at [13] (Habersberger J). [page 86] The nature of the transaction depends upon the construction of the relevant documents in the light of any admissible evidence, even though the parties may not have realised the consequences: Swiss Bank Corp v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1982] AC 584; [1981] 2 All ER 449 (HL).

Construction of the terms of the mortgage

3.7 No special rules apply to the construction of mortgages. They are to be construed as any other commercial document: see AIB Group (UK) plc v Martin [2002] 1 WLR 94; [2002] 1 All ER 353 (HL). For the purpose of the contra proferentem rule, the proferens is the mortgagee: see, for example, Knight v New England Credit Union Ltd (1992) 5 BPR 11,744. However, in Hall v Westpac Banking Corp (1987) 4 BPR 9578, the New South Wales Court of Appeal held that there is no rule of construction which reads wide general words down in favour of the mortgagor; and see Jageev Pty Ltd v Bank of New South Wales (SC (NSW), Sperling J, 26 March 1996, unreported), referring (BC9600343 at p 39) to Ankar Pty Ltd v National Westminster Finance (Aust) Pty Ltd 162 CLR 549. In Ayoub v Euphoric Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 457; (2004) 12 BPR 22,735 at 22,742 [41] McClellan AJA, giving the reasons of the New South Wales Court of Appeal, said: There is no doubt that care must be exercised when construing a security, particularly an all accounts security, to identify the debts which the parties intended to fall within it. Ambiguity should be construed in favour of the surety.

The judge referred to Ankar Pty Ltd v National Westminster Finance (Aust) Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 549 and Andar Transport Pty Ltd v Brambles Ltd (2004) 78 ALJR 907 and noted that the context would be important to resolve ambiguity. The terms of the mortgage will be construed in their natural meaning: Prenn v Simmonds [1971] 1 WLR 1381; [1971] 3 All ER 237. Clerical and obvious mistakes may be amended by the court without the need for formal rectification proceedings. Thus in Re United Pacific Transport Pty Ltd [1968] Qd R 517 ‘mortgagor’ was substituted for ‘mortgagee’. (For rectification see 13.42.) Extrinsic evidence will be admissible to resolve ambiguities: Prenn v Simmonds [1971] 1 WLR 1381; [1971] 3 All ER 237; Western Bank Ltd v Schindler [1977] Ch 1 at 9; Reardon Smith Line v Hansen-Targen [1976] 1 WLR 989; [1976] 3 All ER 570; Secured Income Real Estate (Australia) Ltd v St Martin’s Investments Pty Ltd (1980) 144 CLR 596; Gilberto v Kenny (1983) 48 ALR 620; Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337; National Bank of New Zealand Ltd v West [1978] 2 NZLR 451. As a general rule instruments made between the same parties and for the same transaction will be construed together: Smith v Chadwick (1882) 20 Ch D 27 at 62-3 (Jessel MR); and see Re Piccolo; McVeigh v

National Australia Bank Ltd [2000] FCA 187, particularly, Finkelstein J at [33]-[34] and Kenny J at [74]-[76]; and see Creasy’s Grain Enterprises Pty Ltd v Clarke and Barwood Lawyers Colac Ltd [2004] VSC 77. Where an agreement contains standard form general provisions which are inconsistent with provisions made by the parties with respect to the particular transaction the latter will prevail: see Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd (OCBC) v Malaysian Kuwaiti Investment Co (MKIC) and Aljade [2003] VSC 495 at [47] (Redlich J), referring to Gesellschaft Burgerlichen Rechts v Stockholms Rederiaktiebolag Svea (The Brabant) [1967] 1 QB 588; and see Re Piccolo; McVeigh v National Australia Bank Ltd at [40] (Finkelstein J), referring to the same case. If the document is silent on a point — interest periods for example — the practice of the parties may bind them. Many mortgages are made on printed forms and the blanks are often not filled in. In those circumstances the conduct of the parties may operate, as it were, to fill the blanks: see generally Amalgamated Investment and Property Co Ltd (in liq) v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd [1982] 1 QB 84. [page 87]

Mortgages employing wide language 3.8 Mortgages often employ all-embracing terms such as ‘all moneys which at any time might become owing by the mortgagor or any company with which he is associated’. It will often appear that the parties could not have meant the words to be used in their strict literal sense and a search needs to be made for their meaning in the context of the mortgage document: see, for example, Fountain v Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association (1992) 5 BPR 11,187; Estoril Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp (1993) 6 BPR 13,146; Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Comer (1993) 5 BPR 11,748; Re Modular Design Group Pty Ltd (1994) 35 NSWLR 96 sub nom Thomas v Silvia (1994) 14 ACSR 446; GWH Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1994) 6 BPR 14,073; Re Piccolo; McVeigh v National Australia Bank Ltd [2000] FCA 187; OverseaChinese Banking Corp Ltd (OCBC) v Malaysian Kuwaiti Investment Co

(MKIC) and Aljade [2003] VSC 495 and Creasy’s Grain Enterprises Pty Ltd v Clarke and Barwood Lawyers Colac Ltd [2004] VSC 77. In the United States such clauses are referred to as ‘dragnet clauses’. Although it is always a question of construction in each case, Nelson and Whitman, Real Estate Finance Law, 2nd ed, West, Minnesota, 1985, pp 899– 902, say that general guidelines can be gleaned from the American cases. In the United States, dragnet clauses are generally upheld, but because their apparent coverage is so broad and because the mortgagor is often unaware of their presence and implications, the courts tend to construe them narrowly against the mortgagee: see, for example, Everett Credit Union v Allied Ambulance Service Inc 424 NE (2d) 1142 (1981) (Mass); Badger State Agri-Credit & Realty Inc v Lubahn 365 NW (2d) 616 (1985) (Wis). However, where appropriate, a wide construction may be proper: see, for example, Smith v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1996) 7 BPR 15,069. An ‘all moneys’ clause must be construed with reference to the context of the transaction in which the clause appears and by reference to the commercial purpose of the transaction which the clause is intended to serve: Cuzeno RVM Pty Ltd v Overton Investments Pty Ltd (2002) 10 BPR 19,425 (and, on appeal, Overton Investments Pty Ltd v Cuzeno RVM Pty Ltd [2003] NSWCA 27); and see Ronan v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2002) 2 VR 531 (CA) at 547-54 (Ormiston and Batt JJA); OCBC v MKIC and Aljade [2003] VSC 495 and Creasy’s Grain Enterprises Pty Ltd v Clarke and Barwood Lawyers Colac Ltd [2004] VSC 77 and Chacmol Holdings Pty Ltd v Handberg (2005) 215 ALR 748 (Full Federal Court). There is nothing unjust or unconscionable for a mortgagee to rely on such a clause to secure a later indebtedness, especially if it made that intention clear, Zell v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1998] NSW Conv R ¶55-835 (CA). As to the implication of a term that interest rates would not be set at unreasonable levels, see Paragon Finance plc v Staunton; Paragon Finance v Nash [2002] 1 WLR 685; [2002] 2 All ER 248 (CA). Although each mortgage will be construed according to its tenor, the following guidelines appear from American and Australian authorities: 1. Prima facie the mortgage only secures future advances: First National

Bank v Lygrisse 647 P (2d) 1268 (1982) (Kan). See, however, Johncorp Industries Pty ltd v Sussmann (2001) 10 BPR 18,975. 2. Only debts of the same character as the original debt are secured. Thus in Emporia State Bank & Trust Co v Mounhes 519 P (2d) 618 (1974) (Kan), where the mortgage was originally taken out to purchase land, a debt later incurred to set up a son in business was not secured. See also National Bank of Eastern Arkansas v General Mills Inc 283 F (2d) 574 (1960) (Ark); Freese Leasing Inc v Union Trust and Savings Bank, Stanwood 253 NW (2d) 921 (1977) (Iowa); AG-Chem Farm Services Inc v Coberly [page 88] 733 P (2d) 15 (1987) (NM); Onawa State Bank v Simpson 403 NW (2d) 791 (1987) (Iowa). Australian cases include Williams v State Bank of NSW (1993) ACL Rep 220 NSW 15; Estoril Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp (1993) 6 BPR 13,146; GWH Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1995) 6 BPR 14,073; and Cuzeno RVM Pty Ltd v Overton Investments Pty Ltd (2002) 10 BPR 19,425. 3. If the future debt is independently secured to the same lender, it may be assumed that the parties did not intend it to be caught by the dragnet clause: Moran v Gardemeyer 23 P 8 (1889) (Cal). 4. The clause does not apply to debts originally owed to a third party but which have been assigned to the mortgagee: Thorp Sales Corp v Dolese Brothers Co 453 F Supp 196 (1978) (WD Okla); Pongetti v Bankers Trust 368 So (2d) 819 (1979) (Miss); Re Clark’s Refrigerated Transport Pty Ltd (in liq) [1982] VR 989 at 995-6; Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Comer (1993) 5 BPR 11,748; Williams v State Bank of NSW, above; Estoril Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp, above; Ayoub v Euphoric Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 457 [41], see also Re Modular Design Group Pty Ltd (1994) 35 NSWLR 96 sub nom Thomas v Silvia (1994) 14 ACSR 446. 5. If there are joint or several mortgages, only debts of which all were aware will be covered: Lomarto v Bank of America 99 Cal Repr 442 (1972); Williams v State Bank of NSW, above.

6. Once the original debt is fully discharged, the mortgage is extinguished: State Bank of Albany v Fioravanti 435 NYS (2d) 947; 417 NE (2d) 60 (1980) (NY). 7. If there is a transfer of the mortgagor’s interest subject to the mortgage, advances made thereafter to the original mortgagor are not secured: Walker v Whitmore 262 SW 678 (1924) (Ark). 8. If there is a transfer of the mortgagor’s interest subject to the mortgage, advances made thereafter to the transferee will not be chargeable to the original mortgagor: Trapp v Tidwell 4l8 So 786 (1982) (Miss); Burke v State Bank of NSW Ltd (1994) 37 NSWLR 53; 6 BPR 13,714. 9. An all moneys mortgage which affects a spouse or other third party may be unenforceable against the third party because of the principle in Yerkey v Jones (1939) 63 CLR 649 (see 13.26) or under statutes such as the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW) (see 13.36). Examples are provided in State Bank of NSW v Muir (1997) 8 BPR 15,483 and Williams v State Bank of NSW (1993) 6 BPR 13,552.

Recent examples of construction of all moneys clauses 3.9 There have been numerous good examples as to the way courts approach the construction of all moneys clauses in the last decade. In Re Bankrupt Estate of Murphy; Donnelly v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd (1996) 140 ALR 46 at 55, Hill J refused to read down the extreme width of an ‘all moneys’ clause so it would not apply beyond the initial banking transaction which it secured. To so construe the clause would have been to treat paragraphs of the mortgage and memorandum as being redundant. Murphy’s case was cited with approval in Ronan v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2000] 2 VR 531. Similarly in McVeigh (Re Piccolo) v National Australia Bank Ltd [2000] FCA 187 Kenny and Heerey J found the terms of the mortgage wide enough to support a subsequent bank facility. Heerey J regarded the language of the guarantee contained within the mortgage as not confined to any particular form of bank facility or to the first one which had been put in place. Kenny J found that the subsequent agreements and financial accommodations to the company were intended by

the parties to be secured by the guarantee and mortgage. McDonald J in Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Aspenview Productions Pty Ltd [2001] VSC 444 reached the same conclusion [page 89] in relation to a mortgage containing similar terms. Each of these cases turned upon the language used, its context and the commercial purpose of the parties. The authorities with respect to ‘all moneys’ or ‘dragnet’ clauses were also considered in some detail by Redlich J in OCBC v MKIC and Aljade [2003] VSC 495. His Honour said at [32]: … [32] Such terms are frequently intended to provide a mortgagee with protection in respect to all monies which the mortgagee pays or becomes liable to pay for or on account of the mortgagor. As this case illustrates, the competition which arises is between the very broad language used in such a clause and the inclination to confine such provisions to the financial assistance and purpose that was within the parties’ contemplation at the time of their agreement. [35] Where the further debt was found to be for a commercial purpose of the same nature or kind as that originally secured by the terms of the mortgage there has been a disposition by the Courts to give effect to the literal meaning of the words of an ‘all monies’ clause. [Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Aspenview Productions Pty Ltd, above at 95 per McDonald J; McVeigh v The National Australia Bank Ltd, above at 84.]

His Honour then proceeded to apply the guidelines from Estoril (above; basically those in the preceding paragraph), noting, however, that each clause must be construed in the light of the actual language used and having regard to the context in which this mortgage came to be executed and its commercial purpose. The authorities in this respect were also reviewed in some detail by Kenny J in Re Piccolo; McVeigh v National Australia Bank Ltd [2000] FCA 187 at [82]-[85]. Her Honour said that there was no need to accept the entirety of the approach (and the guidelines) proposed by Young J in Estoril Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp (1993) 6 BPR 13,146 and other cases, in order to accept the proposition that, in many cases, an ‘all moneys’ clause will not be construed to secure a debt of a fundamentally different character from the

debt specifically contemplated by the parties at the time of entering the contract. In construing such a clause, a court confines its operation by reference to its context and commercial purpose. See also Jageev Pty Ltd v State Bank of New South Wales (SC (NSW), Sperling J, 26 March 1996, unreported); and the comments of Lindgren J in Radin v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1998] FCA 1361 at [200]-[202]. In Ayoub v Euphoric Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA; (2004) 457 12 BPR 22,735 the New South Wales Court of Appeal again applied a formula similar to that noted above to determine the scope of a mortgage. See also Chacmol Holdings Pty Ltd v Handberg (2005) 215 ALR 748 (Full Federal Court).

Mortgages with hair trigger clauses 3.10 A similar problem occurs with mortgages which list a number of events that enable the mortgagee to call up the principal or appoint a receiver and so on. The events chosen may include some beyond the control of the mortgagor, such as a third party filing a summons to wind up the mortgagor. One view of these clauses is that the parties must have intended there to be commercial certainty by merely looking to see if one of the chosen events has occurred and no further. Thus, if a summons to wind up has been filed vexatiously, the trigger will have been activated, notwithstanding that the proceedings were summarily dismissed the next day after filing. Cases such as Hughes Bros Pty Ltd v Trustee of Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney (SC (NSW), Giles J, 21 September 1989, unreported) take this view; and see 16.8, 18.7. (Note that the Hughes Bros case was reversed on appeal: (1993) 31 NSWLR 91.) The prevailing view is, however, that if the winding up summons, writ of execution or the like is set aside ex debito justiciae, the trigger has not been activated: Permanent Trustee Co Ltd v Cormack (1920) 21 SR (NSW) 1 at 6; Renard Constructions (M E) Pty Ltd [page 90] v Minister for Public Works (1992) 26 NSWLR 234 at 259; and Paul Kennedy Transport Pty Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd

(1993) 6 BPR 13,883.

C. Contents of Mortgage Covenants for title 3.11 Section 78(1)(C) and (D) of the NSW Act and s 76 of the Victorian Act imply covenants for title in a mortgage. The NSW Act provisions apply when the conveyance is expressed to be as beneficial owner. The Victorian section uses the words ‘conveys and is expressed to convey as beneficial owner’. For the distinction see Pilkington v Wood [1953] Ch 770 at 777; Coronet Homes Pty Ltd v Bankstown Finance & Investment Co Pty Ltd [1966] 2 NSWR 351.

Usual covenants 3.12 A mortgage need not contain any express covenants at all. However, mortgages normally contain (1) a personal covenant to repay the loan (see 3.13–3.16); (2) covenants fixing the rate and payment of interest (see 3.17–3.18); (3) a covenant to repair (see 3.19); (4) a covenant to insure (see 3.20); (5) a covenant to pay the mortgagee’s costs (see 3.21); (6) a covenant to pay rates and taxes and comply with statutory requirements (see 3.22); and (7) often an attornment clause (see 3.23). Section 81 of the NSW Act and the 4th Schedule contain short forms of covenants which may be inserted in any mortgage by using the shorthand form of words set out in the Schedule. There is no comparable provision in Victoria. Other terms in the mortgage are a matter of choice, though some matters are dealt with in the legislation, such as the power to grant leases — for which see NSW Act s 106 and Victorian Act s 99. Note that there is no implied obligation on the mortgagee that it will cooperate with the mortgagor to achieve the mortgagor’s objectives: Estoril Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp (1993) 6 BPR 13,146. In order to cut down on the bulk of the Register Book, as well as for other economies, Torrens system mortgages are made subject, unless negatived, to (1) a general set of provisions, in New South Wales Memorandum Q860000

(reproduced at 4.41) and (2) the lender’s usual terms and conditions, which will have been previously registered in the Lands Titles Office. General law mortgages may incorporate these memoranda by reference or by setting out the terms in the mortgage verbatim. Statutory force is given to this procedure by s 80A of the NSW Torrens Act: McIntosh v Goulburn CC (1985) 3 BPR 9367. It should be noted that s 83 of the NSW Act and s 123 of the Victorian Act provide that implied covenants are made with the mortgagees jointly unless the amount lent by each mortgagee is separately specified, in which case the covenants will be several.

Personal covenant to repay 3.13 Many mortgages contain a covenant to repay the principal sum with interest, on a fixed day, and also to pay interest after default so long as the security shall subsist, but that is not, nor was it ever, a necessary part of a mortgage which, in itself, implies a loan, and therefore a debt recoverable by curial proceedings: Yates v Aston (1843) 4 QB 182; 114 ER 866; Sutton v Sutton (1882) 22 Ch D 511 at 515; NZI Capital Corp Pty Ltd v Child (1991) 23 NSWLR 481. Indeed, once the mortgaged property is sold, the action between the parties is a pure action in debt: Callachor v Moses (1931) 31 SR (NSW) 424. The debt bears interest even though none is expressly reserved: Anon (1813) 4 Taunt [page 91] 876; 128 ER 577; Mendl v Smith (1943) 112 LJ Ch 279; but see Cityland and Property (Holdings) Ltd v Dabrah [1968] Ch 166 and 39.42. The mortgage may, if clearly worded, provide that the loan is only to be repaid out of a particular fund: R v New Queensland Copper Co Ltd (1917) 23 CLR 495; Head v Kelk (1961) 63 SR (NSW) 340 at 345; NZI Capital Corp Pty Ltd v Child, above. Likewise, personal liability to repay may be negatived, as frequently occurs with executors and administrators. See also Muir v City of Glasgow Bank (1879) 4 App Cas 337; Re Anderson; Ex parte Alexander (1927) 28 SR

(NSW) 296; and see 11.12. Again, there may be no personal liability where a person charges his own property to secure the debts of another: Re Midland Bank’s Application [1941] Ch 350. One example is Baypoint Pty Ltd v Baker (1994) 6 BPR 13,687 where a wife who was a joint tenant of property excluded personal liability. As to ‘personal liability’, see also James v Abrahams (1981) 51 FLR 16. The extent to which the personal covenant applies to joint and several obligations is a matter of construction in the particular circumstances: AIB Group (UK) Ltd v Martin [2002] 1 WLR 94; [2002] 1 All ER 353 (HL). Where appropriate, provision should be made for rests; that is intervals at which the account is struck for the purpose of determining interest: see 39.36. A covenant for payment of principal and interest is customarily inserted in mortgages. In the absence of such a covenant the debt is only a simple contract debt: Ancaster v Mayer (1785) 1 Bro CC 454 at 464; 28 ER 1237 at 1242; Quarrell v Beckford (1816) 1 Madd 260 at 278; 56 ER 100 at 103; Sutton v Sutton (1882) 22 Ch D 511. As in law the principal secured by the mortgage and the interest thereon are distinct debts, which may be separately recovered (Dickenson v Harrison (1817) 4 Price 282; 146 ER 465), the covenant should be worded so that the principal and interest are to be construed as two distinct debts. A covenant for payment is not an essential part of a mortgage: English Scottish & Australian Bank Ltd v Phillips (1937) 57 CLR 302 at 308; Re Midland Bank Ltd’s Application [1941] Ch 350. The covenant may be omitted or negatived when the mortgagors are trustees or are charging property as collateral security for another’s debt. Whether or not the covenant is included, there will be implied a promise to repay the loan (Yates v Aston (1843) 4 QB 182; 114 ER 866; Sutton v Sutton (1882) 22 Ch D 511 at 515) together with interest, even though none is reserved: Anon (1813) 4 Taunt 876; 128 ER 577; R v New Queensland Copper Co Ltd (1917) 23 CLR 495; Mendl v Smith (1943) 143 LT 153; 112 LJ Ch 279; NZI Capital Corp Pty Ltd v Child (1991) 23 NSWLR 481; but see Cityland and Property (Holdings) Ltd v Dabrah [1968] Ch 166 and see 39.42. In Re Brennand (1843) NSW Sel Cas (Dowling) 619, the mortgagee’s conduct was held to be sufficient to show that he was confined to resort to the security. Unless there is a covenant to that effect or the case comes within s 93 of

the NSW Act (there is no equivalent in other states), there is no right for early repayment of a mortgage at law or in equity: O’Reilly v Heydon (1893) 14 LR (NSW) (Eq) 283; Knightsbridge Estates Trust Ltd v Byrne [1939] Ch 441 and Hyde Management Services Pty Ltd v FAI Insurances Ltd (1979) 144 CLR 541. Section 93 allows the mortgagor to redeem before time, but only on the basis of paying the interest up to the end of term unless the mortgagee has demanded payment or taken steps to realise the security: see in general Steindlberger v Mistroni (1992) 5 BPR 11,529. If no date is fixed for payment, the mortgagor must pay on demand. It follows that where a mortgagor covenants to pay all moneys owing on demand there can be no breach of covenant with respect to repayment until a demand is made: Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Saunders (1995) 64 SASR 428. [page 92]

What is repayable 3.14 Mortgages may take a number of forms. With a fixed term fixed interest mortgage the mortgagor may be obliged to pay the sum of the principal and total interest by equal instalments over the period of the mortgage with provision for acceleration on default. With an ‘interest only’ mortgage the interest is payable to the mortgagee on regular days and the principal is repayable at the end of the fixed term. Where inflation is an economic problem, a mortgage will usually provide for adjustment of interest according to some formula (see 3.17) and for regular payments to be adjusted. In the simplest case, the covenant provides for the repayment of the sum advanced and interest thereon. Even here problems may arise as to what is meant by ‘principal’ etc. Thus in Davidson v Sydney County Council Employees’ Credit Union Ltd [1979] 1 NSWLR 41 it was held that ‘principal’ did not cover liability to repay money obtained by the borrower by fraudulent misappropriation. See also Bevham Investments Pty Ltd v Belgot Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 494 as to the expression ‘money secured by mortgage’; Burnes v Trade Credits Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 93; [1981] 1 WLR

805; [1981] 2 All ER 122 as to the meaning of ‘advance’. A mortgagor may not unilaterally appropriate any cross-claim or set-off, even if admitted and liquidated to discharge the mortgage debt: Keller (Samuel) (Holdings) Ltd v Martins Bank Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 43 at 47-8; Inglis v Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia (1972) 126 CLR 161; United Dominions Corp Ltd v Jaybe Homes Pty Ltd [1978] Qd R 111; Mobil Oil Co Ltd v Rawlinson (1982) 43 P & CR 221 at 226; and Ashley Guarantee plc v Zacaria [1993] 1 All ER 254; [1993] 1 WLR 62. It is otherwise if the mortgage debt is the amount from time to time owing between the parties on a trading account: see, for example, Ronan v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2002) 2 VR 531 (CA). Alternatively, the mortgage may be an ‘all money’ security — that is, one which secures money on all accounts owing from time to time by the borrower to the lender. Bank mortgages usually take this form: see, for example, Re Rudd & Son Ltd (1986) 2 BCC 98,955; Hall v Westpac Banking Corp (1987) 4 BPR 9578 and Fountain v Bank of America National Trust & Savings Assn (1992) 5 BPR 11,817. In any case where there is an issue as to what is repayable, it is a matter of construction to be determined in the light of the particular words used: Katsikalis v Deutsche Bank (Asia) AG [1988] 2 Qd R 641; and Torre v Jonamill (2002) 10 BPR 19,417. Other examples are cases where moneys due under guarantees were included (such as Cambridge Credit Corp Ltd v Lombard Australia Ltd (1977) 136 CLR 608 and Catley Farms Ltd v ANZ Banking Group (NZ) Ltd [1982] 1 NZLR 430), or where foreign exchange dealings were included (Bank of India v Transcontinental Commodity Merchants Ltd [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 506); and see (Ronan v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd) where it was said that it was not unusual use of language to describe the mortgagor as a surety for the debts of the firm of which he was a member where the mortgage was, in substance, given by way of collateral security for the firm’s debt. See also 3.8. An all money mortgage will usually be construed as not extending to enable the mortgagee to acquire an unsecured debt owed by the mortgagor to a third party and add that debt to the secured debt: Re Clark’s Refrigerated Transport Pty Ltd (in liq) [1982] VR 989 at 995-6; Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Comer (1993) 5 BPR 11,748 at 11,757-8; and see Kerr v Ducey [1994] 1 NZLR 577.

As to the meaning of ‘contingent liability’ in an all moneys mortgage see Re Sutherland [1963] AC 235 at 249, 262-3; and Estoril Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp (1993) 6 BPR 13,146. [page 93]

Acceleration clauses 3.15 Unless provision is made in the mortgage, the parties may, except in cases where the statute provides an escape route, be locked into a transaction. It is thus customary to insert a clause that upon certain events occurring, the mortgagee may call in the mortgage. It is frequent, but less common, for the mortgage to provide that the mortgagor may redeem on giving certain notice and paying interest up to a set date: see Branwood Park Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v Willing & Sons Pty Ltd [1976] 2 NSWLR 149, affirmed by the Court of Appeal (1977) 1 BPR 9534 and Myross (NSW) Pty Ltd v Kahlefeldt Securities Pty Ltd (2003) 11 BPR 21,015. In the absence of such provision the mortgagor may only have the mortgage discharged by paying the interest for the whole of the term under the NSW Act s 93: O’Reilly v Heydon (1893) 14 LR (NSW) (Eq) 283; Knightsbridge Estates Trust Ltd v Byrne [1939] Ch 441; Hyde Management Services Pty Ltd v FAI Insurances Ltd (1979) 144 CLR 541; Steindlberger v Mistroni (1992) 5 BPR 11,529; Jay v United Building Society [1991] ANZ Conv R 124; and see Berry v Advance Bank Australia Ltd (1995) 6 BPR 14,046. The matter is further considered in 32.6. However where the mortgage provides for early repayment but does not give a discount on the total interest for such repayment, the interest to the end of the term may be considered an invalid collateral advantage: Cityland and Property (Holdings) Ltd v Dabrah [1968] Ch 166. Such a discount should be provided by reference to a scheduled table or the rule of 78 with the exception that there would appear to be no entitlement to a discount: Harvey v Municipal Permanent Investment Building Society (1884) 26 Ch D 273. The position is not like that in hire purchase, where the owner claims damages against the hirer on default. See also O’Dea v Allstates Leasing System (WA) Pty Ltd (1983) 152 CLR 359. A clause providing for repayment on sale by the mortgagor does not

appear to constitute an invalid restraint on alienation: Briar Building Holdings Ltd v Bow West Holdings Ltd (1981) 126 DLR (3d) 566. A mortgagor can deliberately fail to pay and tempt the mortgagee to make a demand, but this ploy may visit an interest penalty on the mortgagor and if the mortgagee does not yield to the temptation the mortgagor is foiled: Branwood Park Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v Willing & Sons Pty Ltd [1976] 2 NSWLR 149, affirmed by the Court of Appeal (1977) 1 BPR 9534; see also Stocks & Enterprises Pty Ltd v McBurney (1977) 1 BPR 9521, but compare Re Eusanio and IACI (1982) 136 DLR (3d) 569. A clause permitting the mortgagee to demand early repayment is not bad as a penalty or otherwise: Sterne v Beck (1863) 1 De GJ & Sm 595; 46 ER 236; Wallingford v Mutual Society (1880) 5 App Cas 685; Protector Endowment Loan and Annuity Co v Grice (1880) 5 QBD 592; Lamson Store Service Co Ltd v Russell Wilkins & Sons Ltd (1906) 4 CLR 672; O’Dea v Allstates Leasing System (WA) Pty Ltd (1983) 152 CLR 359. However if a substantial premium is payable on default the provision may be void as a penalty: Cityland and Property (Holdings) Ltd v Dabrah [1968] Ch 166; [1967] 2 All ER 639; Wanner v Caruana [1974] 2 NSWLR 301, but compare Branwood Park Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v Willing & Sons Pty Ltd (1977) 1 BPR 9534 at 9536 and see 32.7–32.9. A provision for interest on an overdue instalment or moderate premium or fine will not be so classified: General Credit & Discounts Ltd v Glegg (1883) 22 Ch D 549; C J Belmore Pty Ltd v AGC (General Finance) Ltd [1976] 1 NSWLR 507 and see 39.50. If the accelerating event is the issue of a writ of execution, the mortgagee may not rely on the event if the writ is set aside for irregularity: Permanent Trustee Co Ltd v Cormack (1920) 20 SR (NSW) 1 and see 3.10. Some states provide statutory relief against acceleration clauses: see, for example, Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) s 95, and Credit Act 1984 (NSW) s 105. [page 94] In the United States, the courts have sometimes imposed limitations on the

mortgagee’s right to accelerate. First, the election to accelerate must be made in good time and before waiver. This principle would be applicable in Australia. However, it is doubtful whether the rule adopted by some American courts, that the mortgagee may only activate an acceleration clause when the security is endangered and not merely for obtaining a commercial advantage or an increase in interest, would be applicable: see Mutual Federal Savings & Loan Association v Wisconsin Wire Works 205 NW (2d) 762 (1973) (Wis) noted 69 Am LR (3d) 702 at 747–9 (1973).

Retardation clauses 3.16 A mortgage may not be made irredeemable. Parties also may not contract out of the mortgagor’s rights under s 93 of the NSW Act. However, in the absence of fraud it is otherwise in order for the mortgagee to agree not to call in the mortgage even though the due date has passed. Such a provision, if absolute, will prevent foreclosure: Burrowes v Molloy (1845) 2 Jo & Lat 521; 8 Ir Eq R 482 and see 16.6. Usually, however, such a provision is conditional — for instance, on punctual and regular payment of interest — and the right to foreclose will arise on default of such payment: Seaton v Wyford (1870) LR 11 Eq 591; Tate v Crewdson [1938] Ch 869 and see Clark v Vile (1969) 209 EG 169. If ‘punctual payment’ is required, this is construed strictly: Leeds and Hanley Theatre of Varieties v Broadbent [1898] 1 Ch 343; Maclaine v Gatty [1921] 1 AC 376. The mere receipt of interest after the due date is not a waiver of the right to sue (Keene v Biscoe (1878) 9 Ch D 201; Re Taafe’s Estate (1864) 14 1 Ch R 347) though it is a circumstance to be taken into account in determining whether there has been a waiver: Seal v Gimson (1914) 110 LT 583.

Interest 3.17 Generally speaking there is no restriction on the rate of interest which may be charged, though from time to time statutes may stipulate maximum rates for particular lenders — for example, moneylenders — or for particular classes of transactions, such as home loans. Recent examples of cases where high interest was allowed include Takemura v National Australia Bank (2003) 11 BPR 21, 185 (interest in excess of 72% pa) and Guardian Mortgages Pty Ltd v Miller [2004] NSWSC 174% pa). Equity does not reform mortgage transactions merely because they are unreasonable:

Knightsbridge Estates Trust Ltd v Byrne [1939] Ch 441 at 457; Multiservice Bookbinding Ltd v Marden [1979] Ch 84. Where no rate of interest is fixed by the parties, the court can fix it: Re Drax [1903] 1 Ch 781; Mendl v Smith (1943) 169 LT 153; 112 LJ Ch 279, and see 39.57. In the absence of express provision in that behalf, the rate of interest cannot be varied although, if the mortgagee is in a position to call in the mortgage, this fact will usually be sufficient to make the borrower agree to a variation. Most commercial mortgages provide for variations: see, for example, Charmelyn Enterprises Pty Ltd v Klonis (1981) 1 BPR 9527. There should be some reference to some external yardstick, such as a statistical index or the base rate of a named bank (for example, First National Securities Ltd v Onwuegbuzie (1976) 120 Sol Jo 458) or the value of a foreign currency: Multiservice Bookbinding Ltd v Marden [1979] Ch 84; [1978] 2 All ER 489; Nationwide Building Society v Registry of Friendly Societies [1983] 1 WLR 1226; [1983] 3 All ER 296. If there is no such reference and no ceiling it is arguable that the power to vary fails as unreasonable: ANZ Banking Group (NZ) Ltd v Gibson [1981] 2 NZLR 513; and see Paragon Finance plc v Staunton; Paragon Finance plc v Nash [2002] 1 WLR 685; [2002] 2 All ER 248 (CA). See also note by Butt (1981) 55 ALJ 820. A mortgagee may lodge proof of debt in respect of interest accrued prior to the date of bankruptcy. However, pursuant to s 82(3B) Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) a debt that consists of interest accruing on or after that date is not provable in the bankruptcy. [page 95] Payments received prior to the date of bankruptcy, representing part principal and part interest, shall be deemed to have been apportioned in satisfaction of principal and interest in the proportion that the principal bears to the amount payable as interest at the agreed rate: s 88. The same principle applies where the debt has been realised by the mortgagee: s 89 and see, generally Re Mangan; Ex parte Andrew (1983) 123 ALR 633, and 32.51 ff.

Provisions for punctual payment of interest

3.18 It is a well settled, if not an intelligible, rule that if the mortgagee wishes to stipulate for a higher rate of interest in default of punctual payment he must reserve the higher rate as the interest payable under the mortgage and provide for its reduction in case of punctual payment: Strode v Parker (1694) 2 Vern 316; 23 ER 804. An agreement to pay a higher rate for non-payment at the appointed time is considered to be a penalty against which equity may give relief: Wallingford v Mutual Soc (1880) 5 App Cas 685, and see 39.55. Lord Eldon criticised this distinction as preferring form over substance as early as 1802: Seton v Slade (1802) 7 Ves 265 at 273-4; 32 ER 108 at 111. The distinction is now too well entrenched to be altered: Meredith (1916) 32 LQR 420; O’Dea v Allstates Leasing System (WA) Pty Ltd (1983) 152 CLR 359 at 366-7; David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1990) 23 FCR 1 at 29 (reversed on other grounds (1992) 175 CLR 353).

Covenant to repair 3.19 Apart from express or implied covenants, the mortgagor has no duty to the mortgagee to keep the property in repair. However, the mortgagee is entitled to have the property preserved from deterioration in the hands of the mortgagor or of any other person whose interest is inferior to the mortgagee, and any moneys expended by him in preserving the property are allowed in taking accounts: see 16.1. To overcome any difficulty, most mortgages contain a covenant by the mortgagor to keep the property in good repair and to repair on notice from the mortgagee with power to the latter, on default, to enter and effect repairs without becoming liable as mortgagee in possession, together with a provision for the mortgagor to pay the costs thereof with a charge of such moneys on the mortgaged property. Section 80 of the NSW Act and s 76 of the Victorian Act imply a covenant to keep all buildings or other improvements erected and made upon the land in as good and substantial repair as the same were at the date of the mortgage, with liberty to the mortgagee at all convenient times with or without surveyors to inspect. In New South Wales, s 82 negatives the implied covenant if short form 1 is included in the mortgage document and then struck out.

Covenant to insure 3.20 Section 109(1)(b) of the NSW Act and s 101 of the Victorian Act confer a statutory power on a mortgagee to keep the mortgaged property insured and to add the premiums to the principal; NSW s 114 and Victoria s 108 limit the amount of insurance to the full insurable value of the buildings upon the mortgaged land or the amount owing to the mortgagee in respect of the mortgage. Where insurance has been effected by the mortgagor prior to entering into the mortgage, and is renewed from time to time, the insurance will be considered as effected under the mortgage: Sinnott v Bowden [1912] 1 Ch 414. It is usual for a mortgage to provide that the mortgagor shall insure the property in the names of both mortgagor and mortgagee for their respective rights, titles and interests. [page 96] The person effecting such insurance can recover the whole and will hold the surplus for the other persons intended to be benefited: Waters v Monarch Fire & Life Assurance Co (1856) 5 E & B 870; 119 ER 705; Castellain v Preston (1883) 11 QBD 580; A Tomlinson (Hauliers) v Hepburn [1966] AC 451; Hordern v Federal Mutual Insurance Co of Aust Ltd (1924) 24 SR (NSW) 267; Reid v Fitzgerald (1926) 41 WN (NSW) 25; Goldsborough Mort & Co Ltd v Maurice (1938) 58 CLR 773; Re Pastoral Finance Assoc Ltd (1922) 35 SR (NSW) 43; Davjoyda Estates v National Insurance Co [1965] NSWR 1529. The Victorian Torrens Act s 76 implies a covenant to insure, but few other states have such a provision. A mortgagee has a charge over the proceeds of an insurance policy in order to secure the debt: Colonial Mutual Insurance Co Ltd v ANZ Banking Group (NZ) Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 1140; [1995] 3 All ER 987.

Covenants to pay mortgagee’s costs 3.21

It is usual for mortgages to contain a personal covenant by the

mortgagor to pay the mortgagee’s costs incurred in the investigation of title and the preparation, execution and registration of the mortgage document. The covenant usually provides that such costs shall be deemed principal moneys advanced under the mortgage and thus they will be subject to interest. To protect against a mortgagee being involved in negotiations for a mortgage which is unsuccessful, it is not uncommon for financial institutions to obtain the intended mortgagor’s agreement to charge an application fee which will cover the mortgagee’s expenses. Unless there is an agreement, the mortgagor has no legal obligation to pay such expenses: Re Cowburn; Ex parte Firth (1882) 19 Ch D 419 at 427. However, once the mortgage is entered into, a term will be implied that the mortgagor must pay the costs of investigating title and of the preparation, execution and registration of the mortgage document, though in the absence of an express covenant, this will only be a personal obligation and not charged on the property: Wales v Carr [1902] 1 Ch 860 and see 40.24. After default, the costs of the mortgagee by reason of the default are charged on the property: Re Wallis; Ex parte Lickorish (1890) 25 QBD 176; Sachs v Ashby & Co (1903) 88 LT 393 and see 40.3 and 40.23. The costs must be such as have been reasonably incurred: Re Adelphi Hotel (Brighton) Ltd [1953] 1 WLR 955; Shercliff v Engadine Acceptance Corp Pty Ltd (No 2) (1982) 3 BPR 9207 at 9210 and EMI Records Ltd v Ian Cameron Wallace Ltd [1982] Ch 59. For a case involving dispute over such costs see Parramatta River Lodge Pty Ltd v Sunman (1991) 5 BPR 12,038.

Covenant to pay rates and taxes 3.22 Although in England such a covenant is unusual, in Australia mortgages almost invariably contain a covenant by the mortgagor for the payment of rates, taxes, charges and outgoings that may become payable or chargeable upon the mortgaged land, with a provision that in case of default the mortgagee shall be at liberty, but not bound, to make the payments. The clause usually provides that if the mortgagee makes the payments the moneys paid shall be deemed principal money and carry interest. Care must be taken to draft such clauses in a wide fashion as a new tax or imposition may come into being during the term of the mortgage that the

mortgagee will wish the mortgagor to bear. The clause is important because most statutory charges are given priority even over a registered Torrens mortgage. A similar covenant is made, under which the mortgagor promises to comply duly and punctually with all statutory requirements, where noncompliance might impose some charge on the mortgaged property or otherwise prejudicially affect the security. Again, [page 97] it is usually provided that on the mortgagor’s default the mortgagee shall be at liberty, but shall not be bound, to comply with the statutory requirement, and that the cost of so doing shall be repayable by the mortgagor on demand and until repaid shall constitute part of the principal and carry interest accordingly.

Attornment clauses 3.23 Under these clauses, the mortgagor in possession acknowledges that he is tenant of the mortgagee, thus creating the relationship of landlord and tenant between them (see 12.10, 19.2, 19.10). Although these clauses have been in vogue for over a century, from time to time local statute law protecting tenants has meant that it was most undesirable to create a tenancy by the mortgagee: see, for example, Associated Securities Ltd v Adorjany [1964–5] NSWR 822. Again, the abolition of the right of distress has made the position of landlord less powerful. Indeed, in Steyning and Littlehampton Building Society v Wilson [1951] Ch 1018 at 1020, Danckwerts J said that such a clause ‘is entirely obsolete and at the present time performs no useful purpose’. However, in Regent Oil Co Ltd v J A Gregory (Hatch End) Ltd [1966] Ch 402, it was held that the clause operated to enable covenants to be enforced against successors in title of the mortgagor (see (1966) 82 LQR 21). The tenancy created by the clause will, of course, depend on its drafting. In a carefully drafted provision it will be greater than a tenancy at will and thus

does not cease on the assignment by a party of his interest or on the death of a party. The tenancy created is to continue during the continuance of the security, subject to the mortgagee’s right to determine it as provided by the mortgage document: see the Regent Oil case, above, at 438-9. The tenancy created by an attornment clause is commonly made determinable by re-entry by the mortgagee without notice after default by the mortgagor. The taking of proceedings for possession by the mortgagee is equivalent to re-entry and no notice terminating the tenancy is necessary before proceedings are begun: Woolwich Equitable Building Society v Preston [1938] Ch 129 at 131, 132; McKinnon v Portelli (1959) 60 SR (NSW) 343. However, if the clause provides for notice of a particular length, proceedings cannot be commenced until such a notice has been given and has expired: Hinckley and Country Building Society v Henny [1953] 1 WLR 352; [1953] 2 All ER 515. The clause is recognised as having been created for the purpose of giving an additional security to the mortgagee. Thus the existence of the clause does not derogate from his rights as mortgagee: Re Kitchen; Ex parte Punnett (1880) 16 Ch D 226 at 235. Where the land mortgaged is under the Torrens system, an attornment clause will operate by estoppel only: Partridge v Mcintosh & Sons Ltd (1933) 49 CLR 353; and see Figgins Holdings Pty Ltd v SEAA Enterprises Pty Ltd (1999) 196 CLR 245. An attornment by the mortgagor to a second mortgagee is valid even though he has attorned tenant to the first mortgagee: Re Kitchin; Ex parte Punnett (1880) 16 Ch D 226. See, as to Torrens land, Ex parte Wilson; Re Bavister (1925) 25 SR (NSW) 375.

Mortgagor’s right to possession 3.24 It is not difficult to imply into a modern mortgage where nothing is said about possession that the mortgagor has the right to be in possession. Such a mortgagor is entitled to receive the rents without any obligation to account to the mortgagee: Moss v Gallimore (1729) 1 Doug 279; 99 ER 182; and see Figgins Holdings Pty Ltd v SEAA Enterprises Pty Ltd (1999) 196 CLR 245. The matter is fully covered in 12.4.

[page 98]

Covenants by the mortgagee 3.25 Although most of the covenants in a mortgage will be made by mortgagor to mortgagee, the mortgage will from time to time contain covenants by the mortgagee. These will vary with the particular circumstances. One illustration is with a mortgage to finance building, the mortgagee may covenant to make further advances on production of a certificate from an architect or the like that a certain state of progress has been made in the erection of a building on the mortgaged land: see, for example, Sibbles v Highfern Pty Ltd (1987) 164 CLR 214. See also Murphy v Zamonex Pty Ltd (1993) 31 NSWLR 439, a case where the mortgagee was financially unable to make all the installments of loan. It is also not uncommon with mortgages of developmental land to include a covenant that the mortgagee is to consent to the lodging of plans of subdivision and the like with government authorities and to release individual lots as they are sold if a certain capital sum is paid: see, for example, Bank of New South Wales v Cadea (No 18) Pty Ltd (1995) 7 BPR 14,301. A mortgagee owes a duty to the mortgagor (and others) to perfect its security, for example by registering its bill of sale, Wulff v Jay (1872) LR 7 QB 556. This is because the mortgagee’s duty is to hand over the security on redemption: Yorkshire Bank plc v Hall [1999] 1 WLR 1713 at 1728; [1999] 1 All ER 879 at 893 (CA).

D. Extent of the Security Fixtures 3.26 A legal mortgage of land comprises the land including what is fixed to the land at the time of the mortgage and what is afterwards annexed to the land by the mortgagor, see Mather v Fraser (1856) 2 K & J 536; 69 ER 895; Walmsley v Milne (1859) 7 CB (NS) 115; 141 ER 759; Longbottom v Berry (1869) LR 5 QB 123; Holland v Hodgson (1872) LR 7 CP 328; Smith v Maclure (1884) 32 WR 459; Hobson v Gorringe [1897] 1 Ch 182; Reynolds v Ashby & Son [1904] AC 466; Ellis v Glover & Hobson Ltd [1908] 1 KB 388;

Vaudeville Electric Cinema v Muriset [1923] 2 Ch 74; Australian Provincial Assurance Co Ltd v Coroneo (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 700; Hulme v Brigham [1943] KB 152; Kay’s Leasing Corp Pty Ltd v CSR Provident Fund Nominees Pty Ltd [1962] VR 429; Sanwa Australia Leasing Ltd v National Westminster Australia (1988) 4 BPR 9514. This principle applies to Torrens system mortgages and to equitable mortgages. It also applies to mortgages of leaseholds and the principle applies so far as the mortgagee is concerned notwithstanding that the articles may be removable by the tenants. However, the mortgagee may not sell the fixtures separately from the land charged: Re Yates; Batcheldor v Yates (1888) 38 Ch D 112 at 125-6; Kay’s Leasing Corp case, above, at 435. Thus in North West Trust Co v Rezyn Developments Inc (1991) 81 DLR (4 th) 751, tenpin bowling alleys placed in the mortgaged building were held to be covered by the mortgage and the mortgagee was not bound by a custom of the industry that such things were regarded as chattels. See also in Australian Provincial Assurance Co Ltd v Coroneo (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 700. By s 8 of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA), securities over fixtures are not subject to that Act.

Accretions 3.27 Everything that the mortgagor adds to the mortgaged property to improve its value is an accretion to the property for the benefit of the mortgagee, as are additions made by a second or subsequent mortgagee: Maxwell v Ashe (1752) 1 Bro CC 444n; [page 99] 28 ER 1229; Re Kitchen; Ex parte Punnett (1880) 16 Ch D 226 at 236; Landowners West of England Land Drainage & Enclosure Co v Ashford (1880) 16 Ch D 411 at 433. Similarly in the case of a mortgage of chattels: Webster v Power (1868) LR 2 PC 69 (sheep), and see Tucker v Farm & General Investment Trust Ltd [1966] 2 QB 421, a hire purchase case. Where a mortgagor acquires an interest in place of the interest mortgaged, the mortgagee will be entitled to it for the purpose of the security. As to shares,

see 6.17. If a sub-lessee becomes the lessee under s 130 of the NSW Act or s 146(4) of the Victorian Act, and his interest under the sub-lease had been mortgaged, the new lease becomes a substituted security: Chelsea Estates Investment Trust Co Ltd v Marche [1955] Ch 328, but see Hammersmith LBC v Tops Shop Ltd [1990] Ch 237. If a long-term lease is the subject of a mortgage and that is converted into a fee simple pursuant to s 134 of the NSW Act or s 153 of the Victorian Act, the fee will be subject to the mortgage by dint of the section. As to accessions connected to personal property, see PPSA Part 3.3.

Statutory accretion 3.28 A statute may make a demand on the mortgagee, but permit him to add the cost of compliance to the principal debt. Thus s 175 of the Rural Lands Protection Act 1989 (NSW) adds to the mortgage debt any moneys spent by a mortgagee in erecting or maintaining a rabbit-proof, dog-proof or marsupial-proof fence.

Alterations to mortgagor’s leasehold interests 3.29 In the case where the mortgage or charge is over leasehold, if a new lease or other interests of a like nature in the same property is obtained by the mortgagor, either on a forfeiture, by any contrivance or otherwise, of the original lease, or by other means, the proprietor of the mortgage or charge will have the benefit of the new lease or interest for the purpose of the security (Moody v Matthews (1802) 7 Ves 174; 32 ER 71; Hughes v Howard (1858) 25 Beav 575; 53 ER 756; Sims v Helling (1851) 21 LJ Ch 76; Leigh v Burnett (1885) 29 Ch D 231); and see Re Hill Pottery Co (1886) 15 WR 97, involving a situation where unfinished pottery had been completed at the cost of an execution creditor, who was allowed such cost when the property was sold by the liquidator. On the other hand, if the mortgagee of a term obtains a renewal the mortgagor will generally have the benefit of the new term upon redemption because the term comes from the same root, and is subject to the same equity: Rakestraw v Brewer (1729) 2 P Wms 511; 24 ER 839; Leigh v Burnett (1885)

29 Ch D 231; Re Biss; Biss v Biss [1905] 2 Ch 40 at 62. The rule applies with greater force where the new lease has been obtained by any improper practice: Fitzgerald v Rainsford (1804) 1 Ball & B 37n; though compare Nesbitt v Tredennick (1808) 1 Ball & B 29. Where a mortgagee has exercised an option contained in a lease to purchase the freehold, the mortgagor will have the benefit upon redemption: Nelson v Hannam [1943] Ch 59. If the mortgagor is given a right to acquire more property, such as the right to buy a closed road because he is an adjacent owner, the extra land will not be charged with the mortgage unless it is so consolidated with the mortgaged land that it cannot be conveyed separately: King v AGC (Advances) Ltd [1983] 1 VR 682. It should be noted that a surrender of mortgaged leaseholds does not extinguish the mortgagee’s interest — the mortgagee will thereupon be entitled to possession: Ushers Brewery Ltd v PS King & Co (Finance) Ltd (1969) 113 Sol Jo 815; E S Schwab & Co Ltd v McCarthy (1975) 31 P & CR 196 at 209 and see also London & County (A & D) Ltd v Wilfred Sportsman Ltd [1971] Ch 764. [page 100]

Relief against forfeiture 3.30 A mortgagee of leasehold is at risk of the lessee failing to meet its obligations to the landlord and the latter forfeiting the estate. That risk is lessened by the mortgagee’s ability to apply for relief against forfeiture under equitable principles or pursuant to statute. These matters are discussed in 37.10 ff.

E. Custody of Deeds Mortgagee’s rights 3.31 A legal mortgagee is entitled to possession of the title deeds as an incident of his estate. Failure to take custody of the deeds may clothe the mortgagor or another person with the indicia of title and may postpone the

mortgagee to other encumbrancers: see 24.41. The rationale is that the estate owner has the right to hold the deeds and muniments of title as against a stranger: Buckhurst’s Case (1595) Moore KB 687; 72 ER 713; Smith v Chichester (1842) 2 Dr & War 393; Clayton v Clayton [1930] 2 Ch 12 at 21. The right to deeds does not attach to a mortgagee of leasehold land apart from contract: Wiseman v Westland (1826) 1 Y & J 117 at 122; 148 ER 610 at 612. A first mortgagee’s right to the deeds will not prevail against an equitable mortgagee in possession of the deeds where the holder has a better equity: Cousins, The Law of Mortgages, 2nd ed, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2001, 16.12, p 256; and see Agra Bank Ltd v Barry (1874) LR 7 HL 135. An equitable mortgagee, not having the legal estate, has no right to the deeds unless the mortgage provides that he shall have such a right. But an equitable mortgagee by deposit of deeds is entitled to retain the deeds until payment or tender of the amount due on his security assuming the mortgage is valid: see Re Molton Finance Ltd [1968] Ch 325 at 333. This right to retain the deeds is not a separate legal or common law lien: see Sunnucks (1970) 33 Mod LR 131 and see 3.44 ff. As to the mortgagee’s right to title deeds when the statutory power of sale has become exercisable, see 20.8.

Production of deeds by mortgagee 3.32 Section 96 of both the NSW Act and of the Victorian Act confers on the mortgagor a right ‘from time to time at reasonable times on his request, and at his own cost and on payment of the mortgagee’s costs and expenses in this behalf by himself or his solicitor, to inspect and to be supplied with copies or abstracts of or extracts from, the documents of title or other documents relating to the mortgaged property in the custody or power of the mortgagee’. The section applies notwithstanding any stipulation to the contrary. Section 96(2) applies the section to the Torrens system and provides that the mortgagee must produce documents to permit any authorised dealing by the mortgagor. ‘Mortgagor’ includes all persons entitled to redeem the mortgage; ‘Authorised’ means authorised under the security not just authorised under the Torrens system: Motor Auctions Pty Ltd v John Joyce Wholesale Cars Pty Ltd (1997) 8 BPR 15,565 at 15,573; Holley v

Metropolitan Permanent Building Society [1983] 2 Qd 786. In Hypec Electronics Pty Ltd v Registrar-General [2005] NSWSC 1213; (2005) 64 NSWLR 679 ‘authorised dealing’ was held to mean a dealing which is permitted or not forbidden between mortgagor and mortgagee. A transfer by the mortgagor is not an authorised dealing (Corin v Patton (1990) 169 CLR 540 at 561 192 ALR 1 at 15), nor is a transfer from one joint mortgagor to another: Motor Auctions Pty Ltd v John Joyce Wholesale Cars Pty Ltd (1997) 8 BPR 15,565 at 15,573. See also 4.31. As to which documents are in the power of the mortgagee, see Fenwick v Reed (1816) 1 Mer 114; 35 ER 618 (in possession of solicitor); Rogers v Rogers (1842) 6 Jur 497 [page 101] (sub-mortgage); Palmer v Wright (1846) 10 Beav 234; 50 ER 572. Query, where there are several mortgagors, whether all must join in a request under this section: see Holley v Metropolitan Permanent Building Society [1983] 2 Qd R 756 and Thames Guaranty Ltd v Campbell [1985] QB 210. This section altered the position under the general law that a mortgagee need only show the mortgagor the documents if he were paid his principal interest and costs: Chichester v Marquis of Donegall (1870) LR 5 Ch App 497; Bank of New South Wales v O’Connor (1889) 14 App Cas 273 at 283; and see Patch v Ward (1865) LR 1 Eq 436. In the case of a partial redemption, where the mortgagee retains the deeds relating to the remainder of his security he must covenant to produce those deeds or give an acknowledgment for production to the mortgagor: see Victorian Act s 64. In proceedings brought for sale by a subsequent mortgagee against the mortgagor, the prior mortgagee will not be ordered to lodge the deeds in court, if willing to produce them and let copies be taken under this section: Armstrong v Dixon [1911] 1 Ir R 435. The mortgagee’s liability for production is owed to the mortgagor and any person deriving title under the original mortgage or entitled to redeem a

mortgage according to his estate, interest or right in the mortgaged property, as such a person is a ‘mortgagor’ under the definition section: s 7(1) of the NSW Act, s 18 of the Victorian Act.

F. Variation of the Mortgage Generally 3.33 The provisions of a mortgage are frequently varied, for example, the rate of interest or the length of the mortgage term may be increased when there is a general increase in interest rates. A variation may however only be effected by agreement between the parties, either initially because the mortgage deed itself contains a provision for variation, or subsequently by mutual agreement between the parties. Without such agreement the mortgage cannot be varied unilaterally. Of course if there is nothing to restrict the lender from calling the loan in, he will be in a strong bargaining position to enforce a variation. Even where there is a provision for variation, the parties may prefer to have a complete replacement of the original mortgage. When this is done, care must be taken not to lose any priority. The effect of a variation on any guarantee must be carefully considered: see Burnes v Trade Credits Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 93; [1981] 1 WLR 805; [1981] 2 All ER 122. It seems that when an equitable mortgage is replaced by a legal mortgage there will be no merger if that result is necessary to preserve priority: Bank of New Zealand v Farrier-Waimak Ltd [1964] NZLR 9 at 19 (citing Whiteley v Delaney [1914] AC 132) and on appeal [1965] AC 376 (PC); E S Schwab & Co Ltd v McCarthy (1975) 31 P & CR 196 and see 36.2. Like any other contract a mortgage may, as regards its contractual elements, be varied, provided the variation complies with the rules as to variation of contracts. The rule in Pigot’s case (1614) 11 Co Rep 266; 77 ER 1177; [1558–1774] All ER Rep 50 may operate to avoid a deed if there is a unilateral alteration to its text: see, however, Armor Coatings (Marketing) Pty Ltd v General Credits (Finance) Pty Ltd (1978) 17 SASR 259; Mitchelson v Mitchelson (1979) 24 ALR 522 and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Skender [1986] 1 WWR 884. The rule in Pigot’s case has been abolished in some jurisdictions: see, for example, Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) s 184. As regards the proprietary aspects of mortgage, for example, the property

mortgaged, any variation will require the appropriate disposition, that is a release or mortgage or an agreement therefor, satisfying the necessary formalities, or the doctrine of part performance. [page 102] It is sometimes important to distinguish between rescission and a new contract on the one hand and mere variation on the other, especially where legislation requires formalities to create valid contracts. This question is to be answered by considering the intention of the parties: see Morris v Baron & Co Ltd [1918] AC 1 and New Hart Builders Ltd v Bradley [1975] Ch 342.

Effecting the variation 3.34 In New South Wales, a variation may be made to a mortgage by endorsement as provided by s 91 of the NSW Act. Subject to registration, such variation operates from the date of the memorandum of endorsement. The Fifth Schedule to the NSW Act sets out various short forms which may be used to effect the most common variations. Sometimes local legislation, such as moneylending legislation requiring the signing of agreements before money is lent, means that the only course open to the parties is to discharge the mortgage and enter into a fresh one, rather than enter into a variation. Where the subject matter of the mortgage is changed, by adding additional property or by substituting a different property or taking property out of the mortgage, the appropriate charge or release will be necessary. A variation of the amount of principal may be held to amount to a new mortgage, compounding the terms of the original mortgage plus the variation: see Scarel v City Loan & Credit Corp Pty Ltd (1986) 4 BPR 9226, citing Re Goldstone’s Mortgage [1916] NZLR 489 and Public Trustee v Mortleman [1928] NZLR 337. Between development companies and banks or other institutions the original mortgage is frequently varied as facilities are increased and in this context deeds of consolidation are frequently encountered: see 31.1.

Ordinarily where there are two mortgages of the same property, the mortgagees may agree to vary the order of priority without the mortgagor’s concurrence. The mortgage may exclude such a right: Cheah Theam Swee v Equiticorp Finance Group Ltd [1992] 1 AC 472.

Effect on subsequent encumbrances 3.35 Where the mortgage secures a fixed sum with interest at a fixed rate, a subsequent encumbrancer cannot be affected by an increase of the principal or of the rate of interest: Scottish and Newcastle Breweries Ltd v Liquidator of Rathbourne Hotel Co Ltd [1970] SLT 383 (as to further advances see 25.13). In such a case, where the equity is adequate, the subsequent encumbrancer will usually be willing to allow the increase, and there will be a deed of postponement, see 24.3. Where the prior mortgage provided for variation, for instance where it was security for such sum as shall be owing from time to time, or provided for an increase in the rate of interest, a subsequent encumbrancer takes subject to those terms and the first mortgagee has priority consistent with such terms. The terms of an equitable mortgage usually provide for the execution of a legal mortgage when called upon for such by the mortgagee: see 3.49. The subsequent legal mortgage may cause the prior equitable mortgage to disappear, by the latter merging in the former: see 36.13. However, assuming that the prior equitable mortgage was duly registered, it is not thought that there would be any loss of priority. For deeds of postponement see 24.3; for variation of priorities see Cheah Theam Swee v Equiticorp Finance Group Ltd [1992] 1 AC 472 (PC). [page 103]

G. Equitable Mortgages Mortgage by deposit of deeds 3.36 The delivery to the creditor or his agent of deeds or other documents of title with intent to create a security thereon constitutes an equitable mortgage: Russel v Russel (1783) 1 Bro CC 269; 28 ER 1121; Bank of New

South Wales v O’Connor (1889) 14 App Cas 273 at 282; R v Roget (1992) 7 WAR 356; see also 1.33 & 1.34. The court makes use of the doctrine of part performance to bring about this result: Ex parte Hooper (1815) 19 Ves 477 at 479-80; 34 ER 593 at 593-4; Maddison v Alderson (1883) 8 App Cas 467 at 480; Francis v Francis [1952] VLR 321 at 339. The delivery need not be of the debtor’s own deeds, but some third party’s: Re Wallis & Simmonds (Builders) Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 561; World Tech Pty Ltd v Yellowin Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 5 BPR 11,729 at 11,732; see also 1.43 (collateral security) and 3.39 (co-owners). The deposit may be with or without a memorandum or other instrument of charge. Where there is an accompanying document, it is a question of construction whether the security is constituted by the deposit or by the document: Hari Sanker Paul v Kedar Nath Saha [1939] 2 All ER 737, and see Re White Rose Cottage [1965] Ch 940. Once a deed has been deposited as security for a loan, the lender is not bound by any limitations placed upon the transaction by the owner which are unknown to the lender: Heid v Reliance Finance Corp Pty Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 326 at 335; CNG Co (Aust) Pty Ltd v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1992) ACL Rep 185 NSW 3; (1992) 6 BPR 97,434. However, the owner of the deed must concur in the lodging of his deed as security: CNG Co (Aust) Pty Ltd v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, above. In UTC Ltd v NZI Securities Australia Ltd (1991) 4 WAR 349 at 351, Malcolm CJ said: It is well settled that a mere deposit of title deeds as security for a loan constitutes an equitable charge over the subject matter to which the title deeds relate: see Matthews v Goodday (1861) 31 LJ Ch 282. Where a share certificate is deposited as security for a loan without any signed transfer, an equitable mortgage of the shares the subject of the certificate is created; see Harold v Plenty [1901] 2 Ch 314. In such a case, where there is an equitable mortgage so created, the court may order a sale on the application of the mortgagee, in the event of default; see Matthews v Goodday; Tennant v Trenchard (1869) 4 Ch App 537 at 542; Oldham v Stringer (1884) 51 LT 895; Re Owen [1894] 3 Ch 220; and Deverges v Sandeman Clark & Co [1902] 1 Ch 579. An equitable mortgagee by way of deposit of title deeds may obtain an order of the court for possession of the subject matter and may foreclose: see Re Postle; Ex parte Bignold (1835) 4 Deac & Ch 259; Garfitt v Allen (1887) 37 Ch D 48 at 50; Barclays Bank Ltd v Bird [1954] Ch 274 at 280 (possession); James v James (1873) LR 16 Eq 153; Backhouse v Charlton (1878) 8 Ch D 444; Jones v Davies [1940] WN (Eng) 174 (foreclosure). A deposit of a share certificate as security for a loan has been held to amount to an equitable mortgage by deposit, as distinct from a mere pledge and is, therefore, properly the subject of foreclosure: see Harrold v Plenty.

Thus in Westpac Banking Corp v Cronin (1990) 6 BPR 13,105 the parties each claimed that there was an express agreement as to how a bank should utilise title deeds left with it. As the plaintiff bank failed to prove the express agreement on which it relied, it failed to obtain a declaration of equitable mortgage. See also CNG Co (Aust) Pty Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1992) 6 BPR 13,101. In Theodore v Mistford Pty Ltd (2005) CLR 612; 219 ALR 296, the proprietor’s son deposited the title deeds. The proprietor denied his authority to do so, but the court held her authority sufficient. The fact that the son made the deposit was not a critical factor. There is a very detailed discussion of the cases affecting this topic in the annotations to Russel v Russel (above) in White and Tudor’s Leading Cases in Equity, 9th ed, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1928, pp 77 ff; see in general 1.33 ff of this work. [page 104]

Documents accompanying deposit 3.37 Where there is a memorandum of charge, this will usually contain an agreement to execute a legal mortgage. Even in the absence of express agreement to this effect, the holder would be entitled to call for a legal mortgage unless the right is excluded: Birch v Ellames (1794) 2 Anst 427; 145 ER 924; Parker v Housefield (1834) 2 My & K 419 at 421; 39 ER 1004 at 1004 but see Sporle v Whayman (1855) 20 Beav 607; 52 ER 738 and Ryan v O’Sullivan [1956] VLR 99; see also 3.46, 16.2 and 21.3. The memorandum will also usually include a power of attorney to execute such a mortgage: see 3.46 and 3.47. Where there is no memorandum in writing, the charge created is prima facie unenforceable because of s 23C and 54A of the NSW Act (s 127 of Victorian Instruments Act), but its validity has long been recognised on the ground that the deposit of deeds implies an agreement to make a mortgage and also operates as part performance: Russel v Russel (1783) Bro CC 269; 28 ER 1121; Burgess v Moxon (1856) 2 Jur NS 1059; Re Wallis & Simmonds (Builders) Ltd [1974] 1 All ER 561; [1974] 1 WLR 391; Thames Guaranty

Ltd v Campbell [1985] QB 210; [1984] 2 All ER 585. Consequently, actual deposit of the deeds is essential: Re Beavan; Ex parte Coombe (1819) 4 Madd 249; 56 ER 698; Re Ridge; Ex Parte Halifax (1842) 2 Mont D & De G 544; Bank of New South Wales v O’Connor (1889) 14 App Cas 273 (note Lord Eldon’s report in Ex parte Haigh (1805) 11 Ves 403; 32 ER 1143). In the absence of actual deposit, the security must rest on a document in writing signed by the mortgagor or his authorised agent: Re Leathes (1833) 3 Deac & Ch 112. If there is such a document, the mortgage will be good even though the documents to be deposited pursuant to it are not executed at its date: Re Carter & Justins; Ex parte Sheffield Union Banking Co (1865) 13 LT 477. There is no equitable mortgage if documents are deposited by mistake: Wardle v Oakley (1864) 36 Beav 27 at 30; 55 ER 1066 at 1067. Parting with the deeds does not of itself constitute an abandonment of the security: UTC Ltd (in liq) v NZI Securities Australia Ltd (1991) 4 WAR 349. The charge created by the deposit is contractual, for, although it arises by presumption, it does not arise by operation of law: Re Wallis & Simmonds (Builders) Ltd [1974] 1 All ER 561; [1961] 1 WLR 391 and see article by Sunnucks (1970) 33 Mod LR 131.

Partial deposit of deeds 3.38 The mortgage may be valid if only some or one of the material documents of title to the property have been deposited: Re Daintry; Ex parte Arkwright (1864) 3 Mont D & De G 129; Lacon v Allen (1856) 3 Drew 579; 61 ER 1024. This is so even though a complete title is not thereby shown to the debtor’s interest in the property: Ex parte Wetherell (1804) 11 Ves 398; 32 ER 1141; Roberts v Croft (1857) 24 Beav 223; 53 ER 343 (affirmed (1857) 2 De G & J 1; 44 ER 887). It follows that if part of the material documents are deposited with one person and part with another, each may have a good security unless there is evidence of a contrary intention: Roberts v Croft, above; Re Price; Ex parte Pearse &Prothero (1820) Buck 525. An equitable mortgage may be created by deposit of a receipt for purchase money containing the terms of the agreement for sale, if there are no title deeds or conveyance in the depositor’s possession: Goodwin v Waghorn (1835) 4 LJ Ch 172. It may even be created by deposit of a map of the property (see Simmons v Montague [1909] 1 Ir R 87), but not by the deposit of an unattested copy of a deed: Re Borrow; Ex parte Broadbent (1834) 1

Mont & A 635. An equitable sub-mortgage of an equitable security may be created without a deposit of the memorandum given with the original security: Re Hildyard; Ex parte Smith (1842) 2 Mont D & De G 587. [page 105]

Co-owners 3.39 In England it has been held that a purported mortgage by deposit by one co-owner without the consent of the others will be ineffective, in the absence of facts giving rise to estoppel: see Thames Guaranty Ltd v Campbell [1985] QB 210; [1984] 2 All ER 585. This appears to be a result of the English legislation. In Australia, there is no such bar as is clear from cases such as Lyons v Lyons [1967] VR 169. The subject is closely examined in 11.4.

Proof of intent to create equitable mortgage 3.40 The intent to create an equitable mortgage by deposit of documents may be established by writing alone, or coupled with parol evidence: Casberd v AG (1819) 6 Price 411; 146 ER 850; Ede v Knowles (1843) 2 Y & CCC 172; 63 ER 76; Burgess v Moxon (1856) 2 Jur NS 1059; Re Boulter; Ex parte National Provincial Bank of England (1876) 4 Ch D 241. It may even be established by parol evidence alone: Russel v Russel (1783) 1 Bro CC 269; 28 ER 1121; Ex parte Kensington (1813) 2 Ves & B 79; 35 ER 249; Ex parte Haigh (1805) 11 Ves 403; 32 ER 1143; Ex parte Mountford (1808) 14 Ves 606; 33 ER 653. It may also be established by inference arising from the deposit, where the possession of the documents by the holder cannot be otherwise explained: Edge v Worthingon (1786) 1 Cox Eq Cas 211; 29 ER 1133; Ex parte Langston (1810) 17 Ves 227; 34 ER 88; Re Wallis & Simmonds (Builders) Ltd [1974] 1 All ER 561; [1974] 1 WLR 391; Thames Guaranty Ltd v Campbell [1985] QB 210; [1984] 2 All ER 585. (See also Re Alton Corp [1985] BCLC 27, where the first transaction was silent as to whether the deposit was security for the loan but a second deposit, expressed as security

for a loan, showed intention that the first deposit was not intended as security.) However, an inference that the deposit was made by way of equitable mortgage will not be made where it contradicts the parties’ correspondence (Thames Guaranty Ltd v Campbell, above) or it is otherwise inconsistent with other contemporaneous statements or has merged in a subsequent security: Ex parte Coombe (1810) 17 Ves 369; 34 ER 142; see also Shaw v Foster (1872) LR 5 HL 321 at 341; Re White Rose Cottage [1965] Ch 940. Further, the inference will not be made by reason of the possession by a solicitor of his client’s deeds, nor against a purchaser who does not enquire into the nature of the possession: Bozon v Williams (1829) 3 Y & J 150; 148 ER 1131; Lloyd v Attwood (1859) 3 De G & J 614 at 651; 44 ER 1405 at 1420. Nor will it be drawn where there is no evidence as to the origin of the possession from which a contract may be inferred: Re Oliver; Ex parte Jones (1837) 3 Mont & A 152; Chapman v Chapman (1851) 13 Beav 308; 51 ER 119; Burgess v Moxon (1856) 2 Jur NS 1059; Dixon v Muckleston (1872) LR 8 Ch App 155. Where deeds are delivered merely for the purpose of enabling a solicitor to prepare a legal mortgage, with no intention of giving an immediate security, an equitable mortgage is not usually created by the deposit: Norris v Wilkinson (1806) 12 Ves 192; 33 ER 73; Lloyd v Attwood (1859) 3 De G & J 614; 44 ER 1405. It is otherwise where there is an immediate advance or a forbearance from suing even though the deeds are deposited for the purpose of preparing security documentation as, in reality, the deeds are given as part of the security: Edge v Worthington (1786) 1 Cox Eq Cas 211; 29 ER 1133; Ex parte Wright (1812) 19 Ves 255 at 258; 34 ER 513 at 514; Ex parte Bruce (1813) 1 Rose 374; Hockley v Bantock (1826) 1 Russ 141; 38 ER 55; Keys v Williams (1838) Y & C Ex 55 at 61; 160 ER 612 at 614; Sun Hung Kai Bank Ltd v AG [1986] HKLR 587, affirmed sub nom Sun Tai Cheung Credits Ltd v AG [1987] 1 WLR 948 at 950 (PC); World Tech Pty Ltd v Yellowin Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 5 BPR 11,729 at 11,732 and 1.29. [page 106] Where deeds had been deposited with a court in pursuance of an ultra vires order that a surety provided security for a prisoner’s bail, no equitable

mortgage resulted: AG (NSW) v Della Lucia (1983) 1 Butterworth NSW Conveyancing Casenotes [92208]. An intention to create an equitable mortgage may be inferred from a delivery of the documents to be held, or a direction to hold them, until the settlement of an account or the execution of a mortgage: Fenwick v Potts (1856) 8 De GM & G 506; Lloyd v Attwood (1859) 3 De G & J 614; 44 ER 1405. See also Westpac Banking Corp v Cronin (1990) 6 BPR 13,105 and Arnick Holdings & Ankar Pty Ltd v Australian Bank Ltd (SC (NSW), Bryson J, 4 December 1987, unreported). The question can arise as to whether the parties have reached the point of final contract. There are four possibilities where parties have shaken hands but intend that their deal will be documented, namely: 1. there is a binding agreement even though that agreement will be later documented in a fuller or more precise way; or 2. there is agreement conditional upon the execution of a formal document; or 3. there is no concluded contract at all; or 4. there is a provisional agreement intended to be superseded when the formal document is executed: see Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353 at 360; Baulkham Hills Private Hospital Pty Ltd v GR Securities Pty Ltd (1986) 40 NSWLR 622 at 628; 4 BPR 9315 at 9321. For an illustration of a case where on the facts there was held to be no binding agreement for mortgage before execution of the documentation, see Fischer v Elders Lensworth Finance Ltd (CA (NSW), 25 September 1992, unreported).

Documents remaining in debtor’s custody 3.41 Where a document remains in the possession of a debtor, a memorandum annexed to it, purporting to appropriate the proceeds to satisfy the debt, will not generally of itself create a charge: Adams v Claxton (1801) 6 Ves 226; 31 ER 1024. But a charge may be created where the document is in the actual keeping of the debtor, if it is in the legal custody of the creditor — for example where the debtor holds it as his solicitor (Middleton v

Pollock; Ex parte Elliott (1876) 2 Ch D 104; Sharp v Jackson [1899] AC 419; Taylor v London and County Banking Co [1901] 2 Ch 231; Re Pidcock; Penny v Pidcock (1807) 51 Sol Jo 514) — even though the creditor was not aware of the creation of the security: Re Beetham; Ex parte Broderick (1887) 18 QBD 766; Ex parte Coming (1803) 9 Ves 115; 32 ER 545. A verbal direction to a third party who has possession of the deeds to hold for the creditor is not a part performance and will not create an equitable mortgage; but it will be otherwise if there is a written memorandum: Lloyd v Attwood (1859) 3 De G & J 614; 44 ER 1405; see also UTC Ltd (in liq) v NZI Securities Australia Ltd (1991) 4 WAR 349 and 2.3.

Property affected by the mortgage 3.42 An equitable mortgage by deposit will prima facie affect the beneficial interest of the mortgagor in all the property comprised in the deposited documents (Ashton v Dalton (1846) 2 Coll 565; 63 ER 863) including accretions (Re Baker; Ex parte Bisdee (1840) 1 Mont D & De G 333; Re New; Ex parte Farley (1841) 1 Mont D & De G 683; Chissum v Dewes (1828) 5 Russ 29; 38 ER 938; see 1.19 ff), but the agreement, if any (which may be explained by other written evidence), will be the measure of security (Re Amner; Ex parte Hunt (1840) 1 Mont D & De G 139; Re Medley; Ex parte Glyn (1840) 1 Mont D & De G 29), as well with respect to the particular property included in the security: Re Leathes; Ex Parte Leathes (1833) 3 Deac & Ch 112; Wylde v Radford [page 107] (1863) 33 LJ Ch 51. The security will not, as against prior encumbrancers, be extended to property not included in the deposited documents, merely by reason of a false statement by the mortgagor to the mortgagee that such property is included therein (Jones v Williams (1857) 24 Beav 47; 53 ER 274), as to the extent to which the interest of the mortgagor therein is to be affected: Pryce v Bury (1853) 2 Drew 41; 61 ER 633. And if the memorandum of deposit refers to deeds which are not shown to have been deposited, and other deeds are deposited, the actual deposit will constitute the security: Re Moore; Ex parte Powell (1842) 6 Jur 490.

Debt secured by the mortgage 3.43 An equitable mortgage will, prima facie, be a security only for the debt specified in the agreement, and will not include debts previously due from the mortgagor to the mortgagee: Mountford v Scott (1823) Turn & R 274; 37 ER 1105; Re Cowderoy; Ex parte Martin (1835) 2 Mont & A 243. But it may include such debts, if an intention that it should do so appear from the circumstances: Re New; Ex parte Farley (1841) 1 Mont & De G 683; Re Hildyard; Ex parte Smith (1842) 2 Mont D & De G 587. An equitable mortgage by deposit, although accompanied by a written agreement, may be extended to further advances, even where changes have occurred in the depositee’s firm: Ex parte Kensington (1813) 2 Ves & B 79; 34 ER 249. The inference that this is so may be assisted by written or parol evidence: Ex parte Whitbread (1812) 19 Ves 209; 34 ER 496; Re Burkill; Ex parte Nettleship (1841) 2 Mont D & De G 124. The inference may arise simply from possession of the deeds: James v Rice (1854) 5 De GM & G 461; 43 ER 949 and see Barclays Bank Ltd v Taylor [1974] Ch 137 at 140. A legal security cannot be extended by such means to subsequent advances made on a parol agreement for a further mortgage, because, it is said, the legal mortgagee holds his mortgage on a contract for conveyance only, and not for deposit: Ex parte Hooper (1815) 19 Ves 477; 34 ER 593. Thus a person who has obtained a legal mortgage may, as to future advances, be in a worse position than an equitable mortgagee. And it would seem that the leaving of the documents in the custody of each successive firm is constructively a re-deposit: Ex parte Kensington, above; Re Gye; Ex parte Smith (1841) 2 Mont D & De G 314. It cannot, however, be shown by parol that the depositee holds the documents as security both for his own debt and that of another person (Ex parte Whitbread, above) though, if the depositee himself is not a creditor, but a trustee only, he may be shown to hold them for another’s benefit: Ex parte Whitbread. In order to connect a debt of long standing with the possession of the debtor’s deeds, the creditor must proceed upon a distinct allegation, supported by proper evidence, that they were delivered to him by way of security: Chapman v Chapman (1851) 13 Beav 308; 51 ER 119; Re McMahon; McMahon v McMahon (1886) 55 LT 763. Nor, if the plaintiff’s evidence of the deposit is defective at the hearing, will he be entitled to an

inquiry to enable him to establish his security, because a reference will not then be directed upon a matter which involves the very root of the plaintiff’s title: Holden v Hearn (1839) 1 Beav 445 at 456; 48 ER 1012 at 1016; Kebell v Philpot (1838) 7 LJ Ch 237. The rule in bankruptcy also requires that evidence can be given of the intention to effect a security by deposit. The usual order for sale in cases of an equitable mortgage has been refused after the lapse of 12 years from the date of the deposit, there being no memorandum, and the bankrupt being dead: Re Oliver; Ex Parte Jones (1837) 3 Mont & A 152,327. But an inquiry will sometimes be directed in bankruptcy as to the circumstances attending a deposit of doubtful effect: Re Lindon; Ex parte Clouter (1843) 7 Jur 135.

Equitable mortgage by deposit and lien mutually exclusive 3.44 When an equitable mortgage or charge is created by deposit of title deeds there is an implied contract that the mortgagee or chargee may retain the deeds until he is [page 108] paid. This implied contract is part and parcel of the equitable mortgage or charge. It is not a separate legal or common law lien. It has no independent existence apart from the equitable mortgage or charge. And when the mortgage or charge is avoided — for example, for non-registration — then everything which is ancillary to it is avoided also, so that the contractual right of retention is avoided too: Re Molton Finance Ltd [1968] Ch 325 at 332, 333; [1976] 3 All ER 843 at 845 (CA); Re Wallis & Simmonds (Builders) Ltd [1974] 1 All ER 561; [1974] 1 WLR 39, but note (1970) 33 Mod LR 131.

Agreement to create mortgage 3.45 An agreement to create a mortgage is unenforceable unless it is in writing or there is a proper note or memorandum of it to comply with s 54A of the NSW Act or s 127 of the Victorian Instruments Act: see Fenwick v Potts (1856) 8 De GM & G 506; 44 ER 485; Warner v Wellington (1856) 3 Drew 523; 61 ER 1002; Liverpool Borough Bank v Eccles (1859) 4 H & N 139; 157 ER 789; Mounsey v Rankin (1885) 1 Cab & El 496; Fullerton v

Provincial Bank of Ireland [1903] AC 309; Astor Properties Ltd v Tunbridge Wells Equitable Friendly Society [1936] 1 All ER 531; Williams v Burlington Investments Ltd (1977) 121 Sol Jo 424. The agreement may, of course, be saved under the doctrine of part performance, but it should be noted that of itself the mere payment of money is an equivocal act (Re Whiting; Ex parte Hall (1879) 10 Ch D 615), though when taken with other matters may be sufficient: see Steadman v Steadman [1976] AC 536. The agreement must be for valuable consideration: a voluntary agreement to create a security will not be enforced (see 1.27). The money must have been paid (Rogers v Challis (1859) 27 Beav 175; 54 ER 68; see also Lucia Heights Pty Ltd v Comptroller of Stamps [1985] VR 338), or, in the case of an antecedent debt, there must be an agreement to forbear from suing, or an actual forbearance: Alliance Bank v Broom (1864) 2 Dr & Sim 289; 62 ER 631; Fullerton v Provincial Bank of Ireland [1903] AC 309. It is not an infrequent occurrence for banks to include a clause in a loan agreement that the borrower will execute a mortgage ‘if so requested’. This will ordinarily be sufficient to create an equitable mortgage: Re Beetham; Ex parte Broderick (1886) 18 QBD 380 and 766; Rooker v Hoofstetter (1896) 26 SCR 41 (Can); Re Collins (1982) 140 DLR (3d) 755. However the mortgage will only come into being on the request for it being made: Penny Nominees Pty Ltd v Fountain (SC (NSW),Young J, 2 May 1989, unreported) and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Rehnby (1992) 22 RPC (2d) 93. As to specific performance of agreements to grant a mortgage, see 1.41.

Form of memorandum accompanying deposit 3.46 Where the memorandum accompanies a deposit of title deeds it should refer to the deposit and state that the deposit was made to the intent that the property should be equitably charged with the repayment of the moneys advanced. There should be express reference to the consideration or forbearance which, as mentioned in 3.45, is essential for a valid equitable mortgage. Express reference should also be made that the land is charged with the payment of interest, but an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds carries interest even in the absence of such a provision: Re Drax; Savile v Drax [1903] 1 Ch 781 at 794 and 796. Where the memorandum is under seal (thus giving the mortgagee the

statutory power to appoint a receiver and to sell: NSW Act s 115; see also 18.3 and 20.5) it should also contain a declaration by the mortgagor that he holds the property on trust for the mortgagee and in addition or alternatively a power of attorney for the mortgagee to convey the property in the name of the mortgagor. Notwithstanding that he sells in the name of the mortgagor, he sells as mortgagee and subject to the duty to obtain a proper price (see 20.21): Palmer v Barclays Bank Ltd (1971) 23 P & CR 30. Every memorandum should also contain an undertaking by the mortgagor to execute a legal [page 109] charge when called upon to do so, although an equitable mortgagee is entitled to call for a legal mortgage even in the absence of such a provision; see 3.37 ff and 16.2. Upon the execution of such a legal mortgage, it seems that the equitable mortgage continues in existence (for the purposes of priority, etc), notwithstanding the usual rule of merger of a lower in a higher security: see 36.13.

Power of attorney 3.47 It is not infrequent for a power of attorney by which the mortgagee is appointed to execute a legal mortgage in the name and on behalf of the mortgagor is included in the memorandum as additional protection to the mortgagee. It is desirable that such power should be expressed to be by way of security in the memorandum. If this is so, then unless the person dealing with the attorney knows that it was not in fact given by way of security, he is entitled to assume that the power is incapable of revocation except by the appointor acting with the attorney’s consent, and so the third person will be treated as having notice of the revocation only if he knows that the power has been revoked by the appointor acting with the attorney’s consent: see NSW Act s 161 now replaced by s 47 of the Powers of Attorney Act 2003.

Undertaking to execute legal mortgage 3.48 For the implied right of an equitable mortgagee to a legal mortgage, see 3.37. The undertaking should be to execute a mortgage in such form and containing such covenants and conditions as the mortgagee shall reasonably

require. It should be noted that a covenant for payment of principal and interest is reasonable: Saunders v Milsome (1866) LR 2 Eq 573. This would not entitle the right of consolidation: Farmer v Pitt [1902] 1 Ch 954. The undertaking should expressly refer to such provisions. Where there is no deposit of deeds the intention to create an equitable mortgage must be clear. The instrument should contain a charge on the land of principal and interest. The memorandum should be under seal if the mortgagee is to have the statutory powers and the same requirements and provisions are applicable as where the memorandum accompanies a deposit.

Defective legal mortgage 3.49 A document, which for some defect of form, fails to take effect as a legal mortgage will be a good equitable mortgage if otherwise valid: see Taylor v Wheeler (1706) 2 Salk 449; 91 ER 388, involving a defective mortgage of copyhold, and 1.34–1.35. The basis of this is the court’s power specifically to perform a contract to create a legal interest in land: see E Sugden, A Concise and Practical Treatise on the Law of Vendors and Purchasers of Estates, 14th ed, H Sweet, London, 1862, p 317; Basma v Weekes [1950] AC 441. Thus a document signed by a trustee admitting a breach of trust with the words ‘holding the deeds of my house and policies of assurance as a collateral security’ constituted an equitable mortgage: Baynard v Woolley (1855) 20 Beav 583; 52 ER 729. When such a transaction was commonplace, a memorandum by a husband to charge his interest in the future property of his wife, also operated as an equitable mortgage: Carew v Arundell (1861) 8 Jur NS 71. So too a defective warrant of attorney to confess to judgment in ejectment which was held to create a valid equitable charge: Dale v Smithwick (1690) 2 Vern 151; 23 ER 704. See also Mestaer v Gillespie (1805) 11 Ves 622; 32 ER 1230. Many of the examples given in the textbooks such as Ramsbotham, Coote’s Treatise on the Law of Mortgages, 9th ed, Stevens and Sons, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1927, pp 80–5 belong to an age past, the age of settlements. In England there are current examples of the principle in cases where land is owned by husband and wife and a mortgage is made by only one: see Williams & Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland [1981] AC 487 at 507.

[page 110] However, the power specifically to perform contracts is discretionary and will not be exercised to prejudice the position of a third party such as a coowner of the land: Williams & Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland [1981] AC 487 at 507G, overruling Cedar Holdings Ltd v Green [1981] Ch 129 on this point; see also Ahmed v Kendrick (1987) 56 P & CR 120. (This passage from the first edition was applied in Nunn v Wily (2001) 10 BPR 18,983 at 19,009.) As to the possibility of the mortgage attaching to a beneficial share to which the mortgagor subsequently succeeds, see (1936) 9 ALJ 431. Where there are co-owners, it is usually held that if an instrument is prepared, to be signed by all the co-owners as mortgagors and only some sign, there is no effective mortgage at law or in equity. This is because it is usually taken to be the case that those signing first did so only on the basis that the others would sign as well: Luke v South Kensington Hotel Co (1879) 11 Ch D 121; Naas v Westminster Bank Ltd [1940] AC 366; Neill v Hewens (1953) 89 CLR 1. As to this principle with respect to guarantees, see Marston v Charles H Griffith & Co Pty Ltd (1982) 3 NSWLR 294 at 299-300. The matter is further discussed at 11.3. However, in some situations (such as where a husband informs the bank that his wife will sign a mortgage, and then forges his wife’s signature) the document will be held to be at least an equitable mortgage of the husband’s interest. See National Commercial Banking Corp of Australia Ltd v Hedley (1984) 3 BPR 9477; Katsaitis v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1987) 5 BPR 12,049; and Westpac Banking Corp v Sansom (1994) 6 BPR 13,790. See also 4.15–4.20 and 13.43.

Title against trustee in bankruptcy 3.50 An equitable mortgage of property which is valid between mortgagor and mortgagee is equally valid as between the trustee in bankruptcy of the mortgagor and the mortgagee.

H. Miscellaneous Strata titles

3.51 Mortgages over strata titles are in general no different to mortgages over any other property. The nature of the enquiries to be made by a potential mortgagee, will, of course, be different but these are outside the scope of this work.

Registration of mortgages 3.52 All states have provisions relating to registration of deeds including mortgages. The principal statutes are: NSW: Pt XXIII of the Act (ss 184A-184J); Vic: ss 5-6, 13 and 15-17 of the Victorian Act; Qld: ss 44-48 Property Law Act 1974; SA: Registration of Deeds Act 1935; WA: Registration of Deeds Act 1856; Tas: Registration of Deeds Act 1935. All states except South Australia have adopted the basic rule that registration is not essential to validity of a deed or mortgage, but that, with certain provisos an unregistered deed or mortgage will lose priority to a deed or mortgage of later date which was duly registered. The operation of this legislation is considered in Chapter 27. [page 111]

Registration of mortgages by corporations 3.53 As will be seen in 11.38, the Corporations Act requires that certain charges be registered with the Australian Securities Commission and provides the consequences for failure to register: see 11.41. It is not necessary to register under the Corporations Act a simple mortgage of real property or fixtures thereon: Corporations Act s 262 (8,9).

Injunctions and actions at law

3.54 While the mortgagor is in at least de facto possession and is managing the property with the acquiescence of the mortgagee, the mortgagor has the right to insist, without reference to the mortgagee, on the observance of any obligation, the non-observance of which would injuriously affect the premises. To this end the mortgagor may seek an injunction or damages: Fairclough v Marshall (1878) 4 Ex D 37 especially at 48-9 per Cotton LJ. This right is now recognised by statute: see s 98 of the English Act which has been adopted in Australia. See 12.2 where the topic is covered in detail.

Conversion 3.55 A mortgagor in possession may sue in conversion even against the mortgagee: Bradley v Copley (1845) 1 CB 685; 135 ER 711; Fenn v Bittleston (1851) 7 Ex 152; 155 ER 895; Brierley v Kendall (1852) 17 QB 937; 117 ER 1540; Standard Electronic Apparatus Laboratories Pty Ltd v Stenner [1960] NSWR 447 at 450. A mortgagee who has never had possession cannot sue in conversion: White v Elder, Smith & Co Ltd [1934] SASR 56 at 61. A person holding a valid lien at law may sue in conversion: Lord v Price (1874) LR 9 Ex 54; Standard Electronic Apparatus Laboratories Pty Ltd v Stenner, above. Should, however, the holder of the lien act beyond the holder’s rights, that holder may become liable to be sued in conversion: Mulliner v Florence (1878) 3 QBD 484. An unauthorised sale of mortgaged goods will determine a mortgagor’s right to possession, revesting it in the mortgagee who will thereupon be able to bring proceedings for conversion: Fenn v Bittleston, above. Where goods are assigned to the mortgagee upon trust to permit the mortgagor to hold them until demand, possession is in the mortgagee, who can maintain proceedings for conversion even before demand: White v Morris (1852) 11 CB 1015; 138 ER 778, and see Barker v Furlong [1891] 2 Ch 172. During the continuance of a contract of pledge the pledgee is the only person entitled to bring proceedings: Ayers v South Australian Banking Co (1871) LR 3 PC 548 at 554; Glyn v East & West India Dock Co (1880) 6 QBD 475 at 490; Sewell v Burdick (1884) 10 App Cas 74 at 92. An assignee of a pledgee can sue in conversion even though the conversion took place prior to the assignment: Bristol & West of England Bank v Midland Railway

Co [1891] 2 QB 653. See, in general, Ashburner’s Concise Treatise on Mortgages, Pledges and Liens, Butterworths, London, 1911, and K Barker, P Cane, M Lunney and F Trindale, The Law of Torts in Australia, 5th ed, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 2012, pp 109–10.

[page 112]

Chapter 4

Mortgages of Torrens System Land Generally Differences in incidental rights Practical matters Types of statutory charge under the Torrens Acts Form of mortgage Types of mortgage Equity of redemption Discussion in Victorian decisions Rights of mortgagors Rights of mortgagees The doctrine of indefeasibility Limits to indefeasibility Covenants and indefeasibility Statutory exceptions to indefeasibility Fraud and indefeasibility Forged mortgages Principles where Torrens mortgage forged Frauds analogous to forgery Fraud and false certification Husband and wife cases

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20

Differences in state Torrens legislation Volunteers Application of general law priorities rules Equitable mortgages and charges Second mortgages Second mortgages and caveats Unregistered mortgages — caveats When a security holder may caveat Covenants generally Variations of mortgage Custody of deeds Postponement of mortgages Transfer of mortgages Merger under the Torrens system Further advances and tacking

4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 4.27 4.28 4.29 4.30 4.31 4.32 4.33 4.34 4.35

[page 113]

Position on default Exercise of power of sale Discharge of Torrens system mortgages General law principles applicable to discharges Limitation Act problems Standard clauses in Torrens system mortgages (New South Wales)

4.36 4.37 4.38 4.39 4.40 4.41

Generally 4.1

A major departure from the traditional forms of conveyancing was

made by the Torrens Statute with respect to mortgages. Under the general law (see 3.4) the ‘ordinary’ form of mortgage of real estate is by deed of conveyance. Under that form the title to the legal estate in the land passes to the mortgagee and the mortgagor merely retains an equity of redemption. However, where land under the Torrens system is mortgaged, the mortgagor retains the legal fee simple and the mortgagee obtains a legal interest in the land, a statutory interest brought about by the registration of the mortgage. Thus s 57(1) of the NSW Torrens Act (s 74(2) of the Victorian Torrens Act is similar) provides that a mortgage has effect as a security, but does not operate as a transfer of the land mortgaged. The statutory charge described as a mortgage is a distinct interest. It involves no ownership of the land the subject of the security. Like a lease, it is a separate interest in land which may be dealt with apart altogether from the fee simple or other estate or interest mortgaged: English Scottish & Australian Bank Ltd v Phillips (1937) 57 CLR 302 at 321; see also Swanston Mortgage Pty Ltd v Trepan Investments Pty Ltd (1993) V ConvR ¶54-487 at ¶65,653 and ¶65,655 (Brooking J), referred to at 25.16 and Figgins Holdings Pty Ltd v SEAA Enterprises Pty Ltd (1999) 196 CLR 245 at 262. In Fink v Robertson (1907) 4 CLR 864 at 891, Higgins J said that the drafters of the Torrens Act assumed that the principles of the general law would apply unless inconsistent with the Act and gave numerous examples. They assumed that the Statute of Uses applied and so the early Victorian Torrens Act negatived it. They assumed, without saying so, that equitable mortgages by deposit of deeds would be enforced: see London Chartered Bank of Australasia v Hayes (1881) 2 VR (Eq) 104. Furthermore: ‘There is no enactment that a mortgagee in possession shall be liable for wilful default; for it is assumed that the ordinary equitable rule will apply’.

Differences in incidental rights 4.2 Although the basic theoretical position with respect to legal mortgages of real estate under the general law and under the Torrens system differ so markedly, in practice there is little difference in the rights of the parties thereunder. This is because contractual rights flow from standard documents and the philosophic approach to the Torrens system has been that only the system of conveyancing is altered: see Lewis v Keene (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 493; Barry v Heider (1914) 19 CLR 197; Tietyens v Cox (1916) 17 SR

(NSW) 48 at 54; Groongal Pastoral Co Ltd v Falkiner (1924) 35 CLR 157 at 163. So far as statutory rights are concerned, the source of the right differs, as the NSW Act and Victorian Act will often stipulate that a provision is not to apply to Torrens system land, but very frequently the Torrens Act will contain an almost identical provision. For instance, the provisions as to notice before sale by a mortgagee in s 57 of the NSW Torrens Act and s 111 of the NSW Conveyancing Act are virtually identical. Despite the fundamental juristic differences between Torrens and other mortgages of land, the courts have applied the same equitable doctrines to each so that, as a practical matter, one can assume that the general principles of the law of mortgages applies to [page 114] mortgages of Torrens system land: see Fink v Robertson (1907) 4 CLR 864 at 891. See also Citibank Savings Ltd v Stergiou (1996) 145 ALR 80 at 82 (Fed FC). This chapter will concern itself with a basic outline of the Torrens system and with the cases where there is an appreciable difference in the rights and obligations under the systems. Chapter 28 considers in greater depth basic principles of the Torrens system as they affect mortgages. Reference should be made to chapters dealing with particular aspects of mortgages as to the impact of the Torrens system. In particular, as to transfer of Torrens mortgages see 14.5.

Practical matters 4.3 Because the Torrens register is virtually conclusive of title, common prudence suggests that the first formal act of a prospective mortgagee is to search the title. Note Mills v Renwick (1901) 1 SR (NSW) (Eq) 173; Drulroad Pty Ltd v Gibson (1992) 5 BPR 11,878. From such a search, in most cases, an intending mortgagee is able to see the state of the title and can assess the risk in lending. The cases show that the system generally works well and the main problems are brought about by forgeries or by solicitors participating in frauds.

Types of statutory charge under the Torrens Acts 4.4 Three types of statutory charge are mentioned — a mortgage, a charge and a covenant charge. ‘Mortgage’ is defined as ‘any charge on land (other than a covenant charge) created merely for securing the payment of a debt’. ‘Charge’ is defined as ‘any charge on land created for the purpose of security the payment of an annuity, rent-charge or sum of money other than a debt’. The definition of ‘charge’ was considered in Avco Financial Services Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1989) 17 NSWLR 679 at 682 as covering the liability to pay a periodical sum, but not the case where a principal sum is charged on land. This proposition was affirmed in Residential Housing Corporation v Esber (2011) 80 NSWLR 69 at 82 (CA). ‘Covenant charge’ is defined as ‘Any charge on land created under s 88F of the Conveyancing Act 1919 for securing the payment of money’. (See NSW Act s 3(1).) Section 88F of the Conveyancing Act deals with positive covenants in favour of public authorities. In dealing with securities under the Torrens system, the text will confine itself to mortgages strictly so called unless otherwise noted.

Form of mortgage 4.5 Section 56 of the NSW Torrens Act and s 74 of the Victorian Torrens Act specify that a mortgage under the Act is to be in the appropriate form which will be duly registered. However, in some states it has not been uncommon for a mortgage to take the form of an absolute transfer with the mortgagor being able to protect his interest by caveat. This was held to constitute a valid mortgage in Wright v Registrar of Titles [1979] Qd R 523; see also Currey v Federal Building Society (1929) 42 CLR 421; Lapin v Abigail (1930) 44 CLR 166 (HC); [1934] AC 491; 51 CLR 58 (PC); Haji Abdul Rahman v Mohomed Hassan [1917] AC 209; and Putz v Registrar of Titles [1928] VR 348. The Torrens Acts formerly set out in schedules the form that had to be used in dealings requiring registration under the Torrens Act. This was found

to be too restrictive and the statutes currently speak of an appropriate approved form. In New South Wales the Registrar-General’s approval is denoted by his seal on forms sold by law stationers. The [page 115] Registrar-General has a discretion to refuse to register a dealing in a form which he might reasonably consider would impede the ordinary and practical working of his department, such as a mortgage in foreign currency without a conversion formula: Bando Trading Co v Registrar of Titles [1975] VR 353. A mortgage instrument must be executed in duplicate. One copy is placed in the register; the other is returned, noted as having been registered, to the mortgagee together with the certificate of title. Failure to execute the dealing in duplicate will render it unregistrable: Re Skerrett (1868) 2 SALR 21. Problems often occur when a multiple instrument is presented for registration — that is, one instrument dealing with two distinct mortgages. In early days Registrars-General endeavoured to refuse to register such instruments. As to unsuccessful attempts by Registrars-General, see R v Registrar-General; Ex parte Roxburgh (1868) 1 QSCR 201; Perpetual Executors & Trustees Assoc of Australia Ltd v Hosken (1912) 14 CLR 286; and Drake v Templeton (1913) 16 CLR 153. See also Cambridge Credit Corp Ltd v Lombard Australia Ltd (1977) 136 CLR 608. Nowadays in borderline cases, the cost of extra effort by the department in dealing with such instruments is met by charging an extra fee. It is possible to create a Torrens system mortgage by transferring the fee simple to the mortgagee, with the mortgagor’s right of redemption being protected by caveat or a registered deed of defeasance. See, for example, Road Chalets Pty Ltd v Thornton Motors Pty Ltd (1986) 47 SASR 532, which distinguished Haji Abdul Rahman v Mahomed Hassan [1917] AC 209 as not representing the law of Australia. See also Sander v Twigg (1887) 13 VLR 765 and Watson v Royal Permanent Building Society (1886) 14 VLR 283.

Types of mortgage 4.6

A mortgage may be given over any interest in land under the Torrens

Act, including leaseholds and land under conditional certificates of title. With the latter a mortgage under the old form is also required. As to submortgages, s 52A of the NSW Torrens Act specifically confers upon a submortgagee all the rights that the mortgagee has under the head mortgage. Although there is no mention of sub-mortgages in the Victorian Torrens Act, it is clear that such a document may be registered: Lyons v Lyons [1967] VR 169 at 176. In McDonald v Lloyd (1931) 31 SR (NSW) 415, decided in New South Wales before the introduction of s 52A, it was held that a mortgagee who has sub-mortgaged may go into possession. Section 52A tends to tell against this now happening, but if, despite the section, the mortgagee were to go into possession the mortgagee would hold on trust the benefits of the possession for the sub-mortgagee. Some of the various state Acts treat sub-mortgages differently from others. In Tasmania they are provided for under s 75(1), in Western Australia they do not appear to be able to be registered, while in all other states they would appear registrable; see Sykes and Walker, Law of Securities, 5th ed, Law Book Co, Sydney, 1993, pp 305–6.

Equity of redemption 4.7 In Latec Investments Ltd v Hotel Terrigal Pty Ltd (1963) 113 CLR 265 at 275, Kitto J noted that, under the Torrens system, the mortgagor had a legal title not an equity of redemption. The Torrens system mortgagor has more than an equity of redemption. The mortgagor remains the proprietor of the fee simple in the land both at law and in equity: Windella (NSW) Pty Ltd v Hughes (1999) 49 NSWLR 158; 9 BPR 17,141; and see Figgins Holdings Pty Ltd v SEAA Enterprises Pty Ltd (1999) 196 CLR 245 al 260 ff (Gaudron, Gummow and Callinan JJ). In Sandgate Corporation Pty Ltd v Ionnou Nominees Pty Ltd (2000) 22 WAR 172 at 184, Steytler J, basing himself on the 1st edition of this work, said: [page 116] … it seems plain that in Australia the expression ‘right of redemption’ has come to comprehend

the legal right to have the mortgage discharged as a matter of contractual right if the mortgagee is paid by the due date and also the truly equitable right to ‘have the land restored’ if there is a repayment after the due date but before foreclosure.

There are many other statements to the same effect: see, for example, Trust & Agency Co v Markwell (No 2) (1874) 4 QSCR 50 at 52; Matton v Lipscomb (1895) 16 LR (NSW) (Eq) 142 at 147; Quint v Robertson (1985) 3 NSWLR 398; Chant v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1991) 22 ATR 79 and, on appeal, Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Chant (1991) 103 ALR 387 at 399; Swanston Mortgage Pty Ltd v Trepan Investments Pty Ltd [1994] 1 VR 672; and Jensen v Guigni (1994) 6 BPR 13,667. Professor Butt in Halsbury’s Laws of Australia, vol 19, Mortgages and Securities, [295-6620] correctly says that ‘equity of redemption’ is an inaccurate description of the mortgagor’s interest in the mortgaged property and that the registered proprietor has the right to redeem only in the sense of a right to pay off the debt and have the mortgage removed from the register. The effect of these statutory provisions is that the mortgagee does not have vested in him any part of the registered title. As the Supreme Court of Canada said in Thompson v Yockney (1914) 6 WWR 1397 at 1398, there is no dismemberment of the mortgagor’s registered title so that, in that sense, the mortgagee has no estate or interest in the land. Despite this, it has been held that the mortgagee has sufficient interest to cause the benefit of a restrictive covenant to run with that interest: Re Bittar [1964] NSWR 438 at 441; [1964] 80 WN (NSW) 1597 at 1599. There are some authorities which use the term ‘equity of redemption’ for a mortgagor’s interest in Torrens system land (see Coleman v De Lissa (1885) 6 LR (NSW) Eq 104), but the majority of cases clearly recognise the distinction: see Robert Reid & Co v Minister of Public Works (1902) 2 SR (NSW) (L) 405 at 414–15; Quint v Robertson (1985) 3 NSWLR 398. In general, see also Stocks & Enterprises Pty Ltd v McBurney (1977) 1 BPR 9521 at 9526; Chant v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1991) 22 ATR 79, on appeal (1991) 103 ALR 387 at 399; and see 1.15, 33.1; and Sykes and Walker, p 241.

Discussion in Victorian decisions 4.8

Victorian courts have discussed the concept of ‘equity of redemption’

in connection with Torrens system land on a number of occasions, not always reaching the same conclusions. In Perry v Rolfe [1948] VLR 297 at 302, Fullagar J said that a Torrens system mortgagor did not have an equity of redemption in the real sense, so that proceedings for discharge were not in the strict sense a redemption suit. The mortgagor was seeking to enforce a right which, though doubtless equity alone can give a satisfactory remedy, is really a legal right. See also Greig v Watson (1881) 7 VLR (Eq) 79 and Elders Trustee & Executor Co Ltd v E G Reeves Pty Ltd (1988) 20 FCR 164. The mortgagor has the legal interest in the land, akin to a legal fee simple, and has the contractual right to rid the land of the encumbrance of the mortgage on the title by paying the agreed amount. However, as the mortgagor’s rights are analogous to an equity of redemption under the general law, this term is appropriately applied in ordinary legal parlance to the mortgagor’s interest. Thus in Ex parte National Trustees Executors & Agency Co (1898) 19 ALT 222, the Victorian Full Court said that redemption is not an accurate word to describe the discharge of a mortgage of land under the Torrens Act. See also Trust & Agency Co v Markwell (1874) 4 QSCR 50 at 52. As Sykes and Walker put it at p 230,‘it is when the concepts of foreclosure and redemption are introduced that the hypothetic character of [page 117] the security begins to get clouded’. For instance, foreclosure ‘converts a legal interest by way of charge into full beneficial ownership’. In Re Forrest Trust; Trustees Executors & Agency Co Ltd v Anson [1953] VLR 246 especially at p 250, the Victorian Full Court closely analysed the traditional redemption suit and held against submissions that a Torrens system mortgagor did not have a right to redeem in the traditional sense, but merely held a contractual right to a discharge. In Road Chalets Pty Ltd v Thornton Motors Pty Ltd (1986) 47 SASR 532 at 537, Zelling J noted that the cases including High Court and Privy Council

decisions had almost universally treated a mortgagor’s interest as equivalent to an equity of redemption under an Old System mortgage: see also O’Loughlin J at p 547. See also, in general, Addison v Billion [1983] 1 NSWLR 586 at 596 and Re Partnership Pacific Securities Ltd [1994] 1 Qd R 410 at 417-18. In Re Forrest Trust; Trustees Executors & Agency Co Ltd v Anson, above at 256, Herring CJ said that the Act ‘introduced a registered charge to take effect as a security, which conferred on the creditor merely a group of powers to secure the money lent … whilst leaving the owner what he is meant to be, owner subject to fulfilling his obligations’.

Rights of mortgagors 4.9 The mortgagor is the registered proprietor of the property and has the full right to it except in so far as he has circumscribed those rights by the mortgage or otherwise. The mortgagor is entitled to possession unless the documents state otherwise or the mortgagee exercises his right to take possession. Apart from rights given by the mortgage instrument or by the Equity Court rights are given to the mortgagor by the Conveyancing or Law of Property Acts such as the right to redeem the mortgage prematurely (NSW Act s 93) and the right to gain a discharge notwithstanding the absence of the mortgagee (NSW Act s 98). A mortgagor is the proprietor of a totality of rights which are appropriately diminished by the registration of a mortgage to the extent of the interests recorded on the register. Thus a mortgagee will prevail over the rights of the holder of a profit a prendre created by the mortgagor after the registration of the mortgage: Vukicevic v Alliance Acceptance Co Ltd (1987) 9 NSWLR 13. Section 81 of the Victorian Torrens Act (set out in full and analysed in 19.7 as between first mortgagee and mortgagor) notionally places the mortgagor in the same position as if there had been a demise by the mortgagee with a right of quiet enjoyment until default: see Figgins Holdings Pty Ltd v SEAA Enterprises Pty Ltd (1999) 196 CLR 245. This section means that a vastly different result will be produced to the same fact situation arising in Queensland: Re Partnership Pacific Securities Ltd [1994] 1 Qd R 410 at 419.

Some judges in early Torrens cases considered that the proper order was that the mortgagee be required to register a discharge upon being paid the amount certified to be owing: see, for example, Greig v Watson (1881) 7 VLR (Eq) 79 at 85. See also Ex parte National Trustees Executors and Agency Co Ltd (1898) 19 ALT 222 and Elders Trustee & Executor Co Ltd v E G Reeves Pty Ltd (1988) 20 FCR 164 at 173.

Rights of mortgagees 4.10 As Herring CJ said in Re Forrest Trust; Trustees Executors &Agency Co Ltd v Anson [1953] VLR 246 at 256, although the Torrens Statutes do not spell out the rights of mortgagees: The general law mortgage was obviously very much in the draftsman’s mind when the relevant sections were penned, and they are obviously addressed to a rofession well acquainted with equity’s contribution to the law of mortgage under the general law, and well able, where the [page 118] Act was silent, to supply from that contribution a method of working out and adjusting the mutual rights of mortgagee and mortgagor. Thus, to take one example, provision is made to enable the mortgagee, on default by the mortgagor, to enter into possession, but not a word is said as to the basis on which the mortgagee in possession should account. Here clearly recourse must be had to the doctrines of equity on the matter The nature of a mortgage under the Act being what I have described, it necessarily follows that there was inherent in it a right on the part of the mortgagor, upon his fulfilling his obligations under the mortgage, to have the land freed from the mortgage and from all powers and rights of the mortgagee, which formed a substantial curtailment of the mortgagor’s dominion over the land. This is a right to redeem in the sense in which equity understood that term, and the effect of its exercise, by payment off of the money secured by the mortgage, is aptly described (by Lord McNaghten in Noakes & Co Ltd v Rice).

That passage from Noakes & Co Ltd v Rice [1920] AC 24 at 30 reads: It follows as a necessary consequence that, when the money secured by a mortgage of land is paid off, the land itself and the owner of the land in the use and enjoyment of it must be as free and unfettered to all intents and purposes as if the land had never been made the subject of a security.

See too the remarks of Higgins J in Fink v Robertson (1907) 4 CLR 864 at 891 and Cape v Trustees of Savings Bank of NSW (1893) 14 LR (NSW) Eq 33 and 204, where the equitable rule that a mortgagor must give six months’ notice or interest in lieu thereof on payment off, was held applicable to mortgages of land under the Real Property Act; and also Re Weiland (1945)

13 ABC 220 at 225 and Lyons v Lyons [1967] VR 169 at 175. Some statutory rights are given to the mortgagee by the statute but, often, the rights need to be read against the background of mortgages under the general law. Thus in United Starr-Bowkett Co-op Building Society (No 11) Ltd v Clyne (1967) 68 SR (NSW) 331, it was held that s 60 of the NSW Act operated to enable the mortgagee to bring ejectment in the same way as he could have done under the common law title when the legal fee simple would have been vested in the mortgagee: see particularly at 347-50 and 4.36. Section 64 of the NSW Torrens Act limits the liability of a mortgagee in possession of leasehold to the benefit, rents and profit received; see also Tooheys Ltd v Sydney MC (1946) 71 CLR 407 at 412; Commissioner for Government Transport v Pacific Acceptance Corp Ltd (1964) 82 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 71. It should also be noted that, unlike the general law situation, the interest of a second or subsequent mortgagee who holds a registered mortgage is a legal statutory interest in the land: see 4.25 and 11.2. Of course a mortgagee holds his statutory interest subject to the same limitations as the registered proprietor of the fee simple: Colonial Bank v Roache (1870) 1 VR (L) 165.

The doctrine of indefeasibility 4.11 The basic principle of the Torrens system is that the title shown on the register is indefeasible subject only to a very limited number of defined exceptions. Essentially this means that the government guarantees that the persons named in the register have the title that is shown and that if they do not the government fund will pay compensation. Thus the situation virtually is that as each transfer is registered a new title is created: a registered proprietor’s title stems from the entry in the register, not on the validity or otherwise of the document which brought about that entry. See, generally, Frazer v Walker [1967] 1 AC 569; Breskvar v Wall (1971) 126 CLR 376. This holds good for mortgages and leases as well as transfers. The exceptions include those in the non-exhaustive list that appears in each of the Torrens Acts. Unfortunately, the list differs from state to state. The exceptions are considered in detail in succeeding paragraphs. The principal

exception is fraud which is briefly considered in 4.15. [page 119] For a long time there was a debate as to whether indefeasibility meant immediate indefeasibility or deferred indefeasibility. The former expression connoted that immediately on registration a person under a forged or defective instrument obtained an indefeasible title: the latter connoted that indefeasibilty only attached when the bona fide transferee from that person became registered: see Clements v Ellis (1934) 51 CLR 217 at 237. The overwhelming picture from modern authority is that immediate indefeasibility is the ruling principle in the 21st century. See Frazer v Walker [1967] AC 569; Breskvar v Wall (1971) 126 CLR 376; and Bahr v Nicolay (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 604 at 633; 78 ALR 1 at 20 (Wilson and Toohey JJ, cf Mason CJ at 613-14, and Dawson J). Immediate indefeasibility was also affirmed in Mercantile Mutual Life Insurance Co Ltd v Gosper (1991) 25 NSWLR 32; PT Ltd v Maradona Pty Ltd; Garafano v Reliance Finance Corp Ltd (1992) 5 BPR 97,420; Arcadi v Whittem (1992) 59 SASR 515; Vassos v State Bank of South Australia [1993] 2 VR 316; (1992) V ConvR 54-443; Eade v Vogiazopoulos (1993) V ConvR 54-458 (Vic Full SC); Coomber v Curry (1993) V ConvR ¶54-464; Beatty v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [1995] 2 VR 292; Bank of South Australia Ltd v Ferguson (1995) 66 SASR 77 (FC); Pyramid Building Society (in liq) v Scorpion Hotels Pty Ltd (1996) 136 ALR 166; and Koorootang Nominees Pty Ltd v ANZ Banking Group Ltd [1998] 3 VR 16. In Macquarie Bank Ltd v Sixty-Fourth Throne Pty Ltd [1998] 3 VR 133 at 157 (CA) (per Tadgell JA, with whom Winneke P agreed), Koorootang Nominees, above, was distinguished on the basis that it dealt with a different situation, namely the potential liability as constructive trustee of one who receives trust property in respect of which there has been a breach of trust; but the principle of immediate indefeasibility was not doubted (see, particularly, at 146 (Tadgell JA)). The issue arose before the Victorian Court of Appeal once again in Horvath v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1999] 1 VR 643, where the authorities were reviewed and the position in favour of

immediate indefeasibility as stated by Hayne J in Vassos, above, was expressly or impliedly affirmed: see at 649 (Tadgell JA); 658–9 (Ormiston JA); and 677 (Philips JA).

Limits to indefeasibility 4.12 The first question that must be asked when considering questions of indefeasibility is ‘indefeasibility for what?’ This question was first posed by Campbell J in Small v Tomassetti [2001] NSWSC 1112; (2001) 12 BPR 22, 253 and has been oft repeated: see Yazgi v Permanent Custodians Ltd [2007] NSWCA 240; 13 BPR 24,567. It may well be that the instrument is ineffective so that the fact that there is indefeasibility is immaterial. The indefeasibility provisions of the Torrens legislation will not cure invalidity in an instrument, other than in the sense of giving efficacy to an instrument otherwise wholly void: see Frazer v Walker [1967] AC 569; Breskvar v Wall (1971) 126 CLR 376. For example, in Travinto Nominees Pty Ltd v Vlattas (1973) 129 CLR 1 it was held that the registration of a lease under the NSW Torrens Act did not validate an option to renew a lease on registration of the lease under the Act where the option was rendered illegal by other legislation. A mortgage purportedly granted by a company that has been deregistered confers no interest in the relevant land in the ‘mortgagee’, much less any indefeasible title: see Australia and New Zealand Banking Group v Barns (1994) 6 BPR 13,739; 13 ACSR 592; (1995) ANZ ConvR 123; and see 42.22. On this theme Sykes and Walker, p 471, say that ‘it could not be validly argued that the registration of a mortgage would make valid a clause in the mortgage document which on general principles operated as an invalid clogging of the equity’. The line between void instruments and invalid or void parts of instruments may not always be particularly clear. [page 120] Indefeasibility of title does not deny ‘the right of a plaintiff to bring against a registered proprietor a claim in personam founded in law or equity, for such relief as a court acting in personam may grant’: Hillpalm Pty Ltd v Heaven’s

Door Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 59; (2004) 220 CLR 472; 211 ALR 588, and see Bahr v Nocolay (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 604; 78 ALR 1 and Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust v Scots Church Development Ltd [2007] NSWSC 676; (2007) 13 BPR 24,969; 64 ACSR 31. This is often called the ‘personal equity’ exception to indefeasibility; however, it covers a legal right such as a cause of action at law in deceit: Garofano v Reliance Finance Corporation Lrd (1992) 5 BPR 11,941 at 11,945 and Grgic v ANZ Banking Group Ltd (1994) 33 NSWLR 202 at 222–3. The personal equity exception prevents a successful attack being made on the registered proprietor of an interest in land because of a contractual or equitable right that binds him: see, for example, Consolidated Trust Company Ltd v Naylor (1936) 55 CLR 423; Mercantile Mutual Fire Insurance Ltd v Gosper (1991) 25 NSWLR 32. However, there are limits and the mere fact that a company director may have breached his duty in granting the relevant mortgage is insufficient to attract the personal equity exception: Super 1000 Pty Ltd v Pacific General Securities Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1222; (2008) 221 FLR 427. In Sussman v AGC Advances Ltd (1995) 37 NSWLR 37 (CA), the rule in Otter v Lord Vaux (1856) 6 De GM & G 638; 43 ER 1381, which prevents a mortgagor setting up against his own encumbrancer any other encumbrance created by himself, was affirmed as a general equitable principle applicable to mortgages of Torrens system land and hence an exception to the general principle of indefeasibility. An equitable right to sever and remove fixtures once acquired may survive as an in personam exception to the registered title: see Cottee Dairy Products Pty Ltd v Minad Pty Ltd (1997) 8 BPR 15,611; applying Bahr v Nicolay (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 604; 78 ALR 1. However, this type of case and cases of impersonation of the mortgagor and identity theft have now been made more difficult for a fraudster in New South Wales and Queensland. In New South Wales, s 56C of the NSW Torrens Act and in Queensland ss 11A and 11B of the Queensland Torrens Act provide that a mortgagee and a transferee of a mortgage must take reasonable steps to confirm that the person signing the mortgage or transfer is the registered proprietor of the interest concerned. The evidence that this has been done must be kept for seven years. Failure to comply with this requirement may mean that the registration of the dealing is cancelled and so loss of indefeasibility.

Covenants and indefeasibility 4.13 Indefeasibility is a principle concerned with title. It should not necessarily be assumed that every right connected with a title is also protected by statutory indefeasibility. It is important to note that indefeasibility of title by registration is conferred on an estate or interest in land but that contractual rights and obligations under the instrument registered are not affected: Consolidated Trust Co Ltd v Naylor (1936) 55 CLR 423; Travinto Nominees Pty Ltd v Vlattas [1972] 1 NSWLR 24 at 4850; affirmed in (1973) 129 CLR 1, especially at 17; and PT Ltd v Maradona Pty Ltd (1992) 25 NSWLR 643 at 677ff. To some extent what is protected will depend on the exact wording of the statute in each state: Caleo Bros Pty Ltd v Lyons Bros (Aust) Pty Ltd (1980) 1 BPR 9496. However, in all states a right that is so intimately connected with the estate the subject of the dealing as to be said to qualify it or define it will be indefeasible: Mercantile Credits Ltd v Shell Co of Australia Ltd (1976) 136 CLR 326; Re Eastdoro Pty Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 Qd R 424. See also Lereos Pty Ltd v Terara Pty Ltd (1992) 66 ALJR 399; 106 ALR 595. A guarantee is sufficiently close to the mortgage to be protected: Consolidated Trust Co Ltd v Naylor (1936) 55 CLR 423 at 434-5. A personal covenant to repay is so connected with the estate or interest of the mortgage that it also attains indefeasibility: PT Ltd v Maradona Pty Ltd (1992) 25 NSWLR 643 at 681. In Long Leys Co Pty Ltd v Silkdale Pty Ltd (1991) 5 BPR 11,512 at 11,520, the New South Wales Court of Appeal made [page 121] it clear that indefeasibility could not affect rights of equitable set-off that arose after the mortgage was registered. Indefeasibility may also affect mortgagees’ rights in other ways. Thus a prior registered lease will take priority over the mortgagee: see 12.7. Like a lease a mortgage involves, or usually includes, personal obligations. It is impossible to treat the personal obligations in the same way entirely as the interest in land is treated by the registration system. The register cannot be made the source of information as to the fulfilment or performance of such

obligations, and the question of what rights they continue to confer may depend upon such matters. Thus, although a proposing transferee of a mortgage may rely upon the register for the existence and validity of the mortgage, he may be unable to depend upon anything but inquiries from the parties to ascertain how much of the principal sum secured remains unpaid: Nioa v Bell (1901) 27 VLR 82 at 84. Nevertheless, the plan of the legislation is to enable the proprietor to transfer by registration not only the interest in the land, but all the accompanying personal obligations normally incident thereto: English Scottish & Australian Bank Ltd v Phillips (1937) 57 CLR 302 at 321-2; see also Consolidated Trust Co Ltd v Naylor (1936) 55 CLR 423 at 434.

Statutory exceptions to indefeasibility 4.14 The Torrens legislation of the various states and New Zealand provides a number of specific, statutory exceptions to indefeasibility, in addition to the general exception for fraud, as to which see 4.15. It is not proposed to consider these exceptions comprehensively or in detail and in this respect the reader is referred to one of the Torrens systems texts to which reference has been made. Indefeasible title does not stand against the estate or interest of a person in the same land claiming under a prior Crown grant or prior Certificate of Title: NSW Torrens Act s 42(a); Victorian Torrens Act 1958 (Vic) s 42(1)(a); Queensland Torrens Act ss 184-185; South Australian Torrens Act s 69V; Western Australian Torrens Act s 68; Tasmanian Torrens Act s 40(3)(b); and Land Transfer Act 1952 (NZ) ss 62(a) and 63(1)(e). All jurisdictions provide an exception in favour of certain easements that do not appear in the Torrens register. In New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and New Zealand the Torrens legislation contains provisions which may be described generally as a provision to prevent the indefeasible title extending to any right of way or other easement (but not a profit a prendre): NSW Torrens Act s 42(b); and see Queensland Torrens Act ss 184185; South Australian Torrens Act s 69(d); Tasmanian Torrens Act s 40(3) (c). Both Victoria and Western Australia have legislation providing for much broader exceptions, in substance, subsisting over the land ‘howsoever acquired’ in Victoria (Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic) s 42(2)(d)) and the Western Australian Act acquired by enjoyment or user (Transfer of Land Act

1893 (WA) s 68). Under s 62(b) of the Land Transfer Act 1952 (NZ), indefeasibility yields to ‘the omission or misdescription of any right of way or other easement created in or existing upon the land’. The relevant provision (s 62(b)) does not extend to protect an omitted profit a prendre. As to the meaning of ‘omission’ for the purposes of this provision, see Wilkinson v Spooner [1957] Tas SR 121 at 134 per Burbury CJ; Sutton v O’Kane [1973] 2 NZLR 304 at 349 (CA) per Richmond J; Australian Hi-Fi Publications Pty Ltd v Gehl [1979] 2 NSWLR 618; Millns v Borck [1985] BCL para 981 (at p 20 of the judgment, per Bisson J); noted (1985) 3 BCB 86 (Hinde). The other exception of importance under the Torrens legislation is the interest of short-term tenants of the land (see 19.20). The most liberal statutory exception is contained in provisions such as s 42(2)(b) of the Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic) in favour of ‘the interest (but excluding any option to purchase) of a tenant in possession of the land’. Similar provisions are contained in NSW Torrens Act s 42; Queensland [page 122] Torrens Act s 185(1)(b); South Australian Torrens Act s 69 Pt VIII; Western Australian Torrens Act s 68; Tasmanian Torrens Act s 40(3)(d).

Fraud and indefeasibility 4.15 The principal exception to indefeasibility is where the person seeking indefeasibility has been guilty of fraud. As Sykes and Walker say at p 297, whatever result is attributed to fraud by the general law is not going to be altered by the fact that the fraudster obtained a registered title. ‘Fraud’ for the purpose of the exception, commonly referred to as ‘statutory fraud’, means actual fraud not mere equitable fraud: Assets Co Ltd v Mere Roihi [1905] AC 176 at 210. See also Butler v Fairclough (1917) 23 CLR 78 at 90, 97; Bahr v Nicolay (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 604; Russo v Bendigo Bank Ltd [1999] 3 VR 376 (CA). As Hinde, McMorland and Sim point out in Butterworth’s Land Law in New Zealand, Butterworths, Wellington, 2003, vol 1, 9.018, statutory fraud ‘is (1) wider than the common law concept of fraud because it is not confined

to deceit or fraudulent misrepresentation; and (2) narrower than equitable fraud because dishonesty in the sense of moral turpitude is an essential element’. They cite Latec Investments Pty Ltd v Hotel Terrigal Pty ltd (1965) 113 CLR 265 as authority for proposition (1) and Bahr v Nicolay (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 604 at 616; 78 ALR 1 at 6 as authority for proposition (2). As to the definition of ‘equitable fraud,’ see Hart v O’Connor [1965] AC 1000 at 1005; [1965] 2 All ER 880 at 891–3. However, this does not mean that all species of equitable fraud stand outside statutory fraud, indeed this is far from the case: Bahr v Nicolay (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 604 at 614; 78 ALR 1 at 20. Furthermore, the fraud must be brought home to the registered proprietor or to his or her agent: Munro v Stuart (1924) 41 SR (NSW) 203 at 206; Davis v Williams [2003] NSWCA 371 [85]; (2003) 11 BPR 21,313. Fraud may take many forms. The principal problems with the exception have been forgery (see 4.16), cases analogous to forgery (4.18) and false certification cases (4.19). A number of leading cases have occurred through a spouse forging their partner’s signature and a witness falsely certifying and these cases are noted in 4.20. Ordinarily, mere notice does not constitute fraud: Oertel v Hordern (1902) 2 SR (NSW) (Eq) 37. Mere knowledge of an unregistered interest does not of itself amount to fraud (Waimiha Sawmilling Co Ltd (in liq) v Waione Timber Co Ltd [1926] AC 101 at 107; and Bride v Feehill Hollingdale and Page (1996) ANZ ConvR 593 (WA, FC)); but it is otherwise in relation to ‘reckless conduct to the point of dishonesty’: see Koorootang Nominees Pty Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [1998] 3 VR 16. Mere notice of a prior unregistered interest is not fraud of itself, knowingly participating in a breach of trust may amount to fraud within the meaning of the Torrens legislation: see Templeton v Leviathan Pty Ltd (1921) 30 CLR 34 at 69 per Higgins J; see also Wicks v Bennett (1921) 30 CLR 80 at 94 per Higgins J; Mills v Stokman (1967) 116 CLR 61. In Paradise Constructions & Co Pty Ltd v Poyser [2007] VSCA 316: (2007) 20 VR 294 the court rejected the submission that a registered mortgage which had been altered after signing by the insertion of a date was void under the Rule in Pigot’s case (1614) 11 Co Rep 26b;77 ER 1177; [1558]–[1775] All ER. It did so on two bases: (1) the registration cured any

invalidity and (2) the rule in Pigot’s case does not apply where the alteration is made before the instrument takes effect.

Forged mortgages 4.16 Despite the rule that under the general law a forged instrument was a nullity for all purposes, a forged mortgage, when registered, will usually give the named mortgagee an [page 123] indefeasible title. That title is, of course, subject to any personal equity which may bind the mortgagee: Frazer v Walker [1967] 1 AC 569; Breskvar v Wall (1971) 126 CLR 376; and Mercantile Mutual Life Insurance Co Ltd v Gosper (1991) 25 NSWLR 32, especially at 44. A person suffering loss by such registration may have recourse to the assurance fund. This result occurs because, under the Torrens system, registration is the act which gives title, and registration may be brought about by a forgery: see, for example, Story v Advance Bank Australia Ltd (1993) 31 NSWLR 722 and Garofano v Reliance Finance Corp Ltd (1992) 5 BPR 11,941. There are a series of older authorities which contain a statement that a forged instrument purporting to deal with Torrens title land is void: see, for example, Davies v Ryan [1951] VLR 283 at 287. However, these are based on the discredited theory of deferred indefeasibility which lasted in Victoria longer than elsewhere until discarded by the judgment of Hayne J in Vassos v State Bank of South Australia [1993] 2 VR 316; (1992) V ConvR ¶54-443. A forged mortgage is not a nullity, but it may be fraud for a person to present a forged mortgage for registration in the absence of an honest belief that it is valid: Beatty v ANZ Banking Group [1995] 2 VR 301 at 314 ff per Mandie J. In recent times in NSW, a number of cases have occurred where the mortgagor has acquiesced in someone else signing his or her signature to the document. When there is default the mortgagors protest that the mortgage is forged so that they do not have to repay. If this acquiesence is established, the mortgagors will be bound. An example is Capital Access Australia Pty Ltd v

Hraiki [2011] NSWSC 109; (2011) 15 BPR 29,113. A significant number of cases involve the forging of a spouse’s signature and the negligent certification of that signature: see the discussion in 4.19.

Principles where Torrens mortgage forged 4.17 In Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd v English [2010] NSWCA 32; (2010) 14 BPR 27,339 at 27,341 [11], Sackville AJA, giving the reasons of the NSW Court of Appeal, said that the authorities made it clear that when it appears that a Torrens mortgage is forged, the Act confers indefeasibilty, but there is a further question to be addressed, namely, whether the indefeasibilty of the mortgagee’s title effectively validates all the terms of what otherwise would be a void instrument and, if not, what terms can be enforced against the estate or interest of the registered proprietor. This is a matter of construction of the mortgage, but, in NSW, the result is usually unfavourable to mortgagees. See also Yazgi v Permanent Custodians Ltd [2007] NSWCA 240; (2007) 13 BPR 24,567; Van Den Heuval v Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd [2010] NSWCA 171: (2010) 15 BPR 28,647 and articles by Stoljar (2008) 82 ALJ 28 and Vaughan (2008) 82 ALJ 671. A mortgagee when the mortgage is shown to have been forged may be able to show that the registered proprietor is estopped from denying the mortgage because of his or her conduct in permitting his or her agent in a transaction from committing a fraud. Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd v Menzies [2012] NSWSC 1066; (2012) 16 BPR 31,541 is a case where the mortgagee was unsuccessful in its attempt, but where the principles concerned are examined.

Frauds analogous to forgery 4.18 As Debelle J said in Arcadi v Whittem (1992) 59 SASR 515 at 537–8, the term ‘forgery’ might be used to cover a number of distinct frauds, from signing another’s signature without authority to altering a document without authority. Because of the wording of s 69 of the South Australian Torrens Act, there is some authority that deferred indefeasibility applies in forgery cases strictly so called (see Rogers v Resi-Statewide Corporation Ltd (1991) 29 FCR 219; 101 ALR 377), a decision of a

[page 124] single Federal Court judge which the South Australian Full Court held to be in error: Arcadi v Whittem (1992) 59 SASR 515. There is a difference between a document signed under a pseudonym which may be valid, a mortgage given by a fictitious person and a forged signature: see Allied Mills Ltd v Robinson (1981) 2 BPR 9353; Wicklow Enterprises Pty Ltd v Doysal Pty Ltd (1986) 45 SASR 247. It was thought that Gibbs v Messer [1891] AC 248 still governed the case where the mortgagor is a fictitious person, but few would so argue today. An allied question is how far a mortgage given by a corporation should be upheld where a director’s signature has been forged or the common seal affixed without authority. Such a mortgage will usually be held to bind the corporation where the mortgagee is not affected by any personal equity. This result follows under the ‘indoor management’ rule set out in Royal British Bank v Turquand (1856) 6 El & Bl 327; 119 ER 886; Northside Development Pty Ltd v Registrar General (1990) 170 CLR 146, or pursuant to ss 128 and 129 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth); Story v Advance Bank Australia Ltd, above; and see Sixty-Fourth Throne Pty Ltd v Macquarie Bank (1996) 130 FLR 411; and Pyramid Building Society (in liq) v Scorpion Hotels Pty Ltd (1996) 136 ALR 166. Where the mortgage is contrary to law (Travinto Nominees Pty Ltd v Vlattas (1973) 129 CLR 1) or the mortgagee or registered proprietor is nonexistent (Brady v Brady (1874) 8 SALR 219; Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Barns (1994) 13 ACSR 592), the mortgage, despite its registration, will not confer any interest in the land.

Fraud and false certification 4.19 Fraud may well exist where a mortgagee or its agent, either through recklessness or wilfully, falsely certifies to the Registrar-General that the mortgage has been signed in his presence by the mortgagor who is personally known to him: National Commercial Banking Corp of Australia Ltd v Hedley (1984) 3 BPR 9477 at 9480-1; Australian Guarantee Corp Ltd v De Jager [1984] VR 483. It is fraud within the meaning of that term in the Torrens Acts ‘when a representation is made, contrary to fact, that a person is

personally known to the attesting witness and has signed the document in his/her presence’. ‘The purpose of the requirement that a registrable document should be signed by a person in the presence of another to whom he/she is personally known is, inter alia, to avoid the registration of forged documents’: per Rolfe J in Westpac Banking Corp v Sansom (1994) 6 BPR 13,790 at 13,796 (affirmed as Sansom v Westpac Banking Corp (1996) 7 BPR 14,615). See also Scallan v Registrar General (1988) 12 NSWLR 514; Demetrios v Gikas Dry Cleaning Industries Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 561; Davis v Williams (2003) 11 BPR 21,213 (CA). A witness who, because the mortgagor’s family impersonate him, is tricked into asserting that the mortgagor has signed in his presence does not act recklessly: Grgic v Australian & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1994) 33 NSWLR 202. In any event, ‘personally known’ does not appear to signify that the witness need make any inquiry if a person claims to be the mortgagor and there is no reason to suspect otherwise: Kelly v Calhoun (1877) 95 US 710 at 713; Carolan v Yoran (1905) 93 NYS 935 at 936 and the Grgic case, above. However, s 56C of the NSW Torrens Act and ss 11A and 11B of the Queensland Torrens Act (see 4.12) have reversed this position in those states. A false representation by a person as a witness will only amount to statutory fraud if the witness is guilty of moral turpitude: Bank of South Australia v Ferguson (1998) 192 CLR 248; Russo v Bendigo Bank Ltd [1999] 3 VR 376; Davis v Williams (2003) 11 BPR 21,313 (CA). A mere failure to have an instrument properly witnessed will not, after registration, affect its validity: Arnold v State Bank of South Australia (1992) 38 FCR 484. Nevertheless in Hickey v Powershift Tractors Pty Ltd (1998) 9 BPR 17,339 it was held that the fraud did not extend to the substance of the transaction; it related only to whether or not [page 125] the mortgage was to be registered. Consequently the mortgage operated as a written agreement to mortgage which was enforceable in equity. It should be noted that where a solicitor wittingly or unwittingly subscribes as witness to a forged mortgage, he or she will almost certainly incur

liabilities (Eade v Vogiazopoulos (1993) ANZ ConvR 129; V ConvR ¶54-458 (Vic SC) per Smith J; see also National Commercial Banking Corp of Australia Ltd v Hedley, above), unless the facts show that he was an innocent party who subscribed to a document executed in his presence.

Husband and wife cases 4.20 It not uncommonly happens that where a husband and wife are coowners of property the husband will raise a loan on the property, without telling his wife, and forging her signature: see, for example, Eade v Vogiazopoulos (1993) V ConvR ¶54-458 and Van den Heuvel v Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd [2010] NSWCA 171; (2010) 15 BPR 28,647. The mortgage is usually a second or subsequent mortgage where the lender does not bother to investigate title. If such a lender took the trouble to investigate the title, a comparison of the relevant signatures on the disposition to the would-be borrowers and a first mortgage with those on the letter of acceptance would often disclose the true position. Where there is such a forgery, the mortgage would, under the Old System, not generally be binding on the wife. However, under the Torrens system, on registration, the wife will be bound subject to having a claim against the Assurance Fund: Van den Heuvel v Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd [2010] NSWCA 171; (2010) 15 BPR 28,647. See also Australian Guarantee Corp Ltd v De Jager [1984] VR 483 where the mortgagee knew his wife’s signature was unattested.

Differences in State Torrens legislation 4.21 Care must always be taken when relying on interstate decisions on the Torrens legislation to check to see that the local law is in the same terms. Curiously, there are vital differences in wording in the various pieces of legislation which may affect the result of a particular case. The differences between the Torrens legislation of the various states was highlighted by the reference in Vassos v State Bank of South Australia [1993] 2 VR 316; (1992) V ConvR ¶54-493 to some other decisions apparently at odds with the principle of immediate indefeasibility. In Rogers v ResiStatewide Corp Ltd (1991) 101 ALR 377 it was held that a person claiming title under a forged instrument, though innocent of the fraud, did not gain

indefeasible title by reason of the provisions of s 69 (b) of the Real Property Act 1886 (SA) (a decision which was not followed in Arcadi v Whittem (1992) 59 SASR 515, see below). Hayne J in the Vassos case found this decision of no assistance, on the basis that the South Australian provisions were very different from s 44 of the Victorian Act; see also the second Rogers case (Rogers v Resi-Statewide Corp Ltd (1991) 105 ALR 145), which was regarded as being of no assistance for the same reasons. Note that in Citibank Savings Ltd v Stergiou (1996) 145 ALR 80 at 83, the Full Federal Court carefully analysed the ACT legislation before feeling confident in following Victorian authority on slightly different legislation.

Volunteers 4.22 The extent to which a person who takes an interest in land as a volunteer and becomes registered as the proprietor of that interest is bound by a prior unregistered interest depends upon the terms of the ‘paramountcy’ provisions of the Torrens legislation: see NSW Torrens Act s 42; Victorian Torrens Act s 42; Queensland Torrens Act ss 184-185; South Australian Torrens Act s 69; Western Australian Torrens Act s 68; and Tasmanian Torrens Act s 40. [page 126] A volunteer is as much protected by the indefeasibility principle as any other registered proprietor: Bogdanovic v Koteff (1988) 12 NSWLR 472. In general a volunteer is in much the same position under the Torrens legislation as he or she would be with respect to general law land; see Sykes and Walker, p 453, referring to Biggs v McEllister (1880) 14 SALR 86; Crow v Campbell (1884) 10 VLR 186; and Gibbs v Messer [1891] AC 248 at 254 per Lord Watson.

Application of general law priorities rules 4.23 The general position is that there is considerable scope for the operation of the general law priorities rules with respect to Torrens title land. This is because there will be many situations where a contest will exist

between unregistered interests. As Meagher, Gummow and Lehane [8-090] note, as between unregistered interests — and most unregistered interests will on any view be equitable — the general law of priorities qui prior est tempore potior est iure prevails. Sykes and Walker also take a similar view at pp 463 ff saying that the general law principles apply so far as the nature of the case permits. It must be recognised, of course, that an interest in land which is not registered is not necessarily an equitable interest. There may, for instance, be unregistered short-term leases which are legal interests. Moreover, unregistered instruments of security retain their force even after sale of the property over which they are secured in that they will operate as a charge over the proceed of sale: Hope v Hope [1977] 1 NZLR 582; Avco Financial Services Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1989) 17 NSWLR 679. The High Court has consistently taken the view that the general law priorities rules apply and has approached the determination of priorities questions based on characterisation of interests in Torrens title land in terms of whether they are legal or equitable interests according to these rules. This is particularly evident in the series of cases in which the High Court and the Privy Council considered the effect of the failure to lodge a caveat by a person to protect his unregistered, equitable, interest: see, for example, Butler v Fairclough (1917) 23 CLR 78; Abigail v Lapin [1934] AC 491; J & H Just v Bank of New South Wales (1971) 125 CLR 546; see also Burke v Dawes (1938) 59 CLR 1 and Barba v Gas and Fuel Corp of Victoria (1976) 136 CLR 120. Also, the statements in the advice of the Privy Council in Frazer v Walker [1967] 1 AC 569 on the preservation of rights in personam in law and in equity as persisting inter partes in spite of the indefeasibility of the registered proprietor’s interest appears to be based on an acceptance of the view that in general interests in Torrens title land are properly characterised as legal or equitable. Generally, the same rules as to priority of competing interests apply to Torrens system land as are applicable to land under Old System title. Of course, the statement just made is subject to the overriding principle that a registered interest is indefeasible unless one of the recognised exceptions is applicable.

It must also be recognised that where there are a series of equitable interests, it is not necessarily so that the first to be protected by caveat will prevail. The maxim ‘Where equities are equal, the first in time prevails’ still applies, though failure to caveat may mean that equities are not equal: see, for example, Abigail v Lapin [1934] AC 491 (PC) and J & H Just (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Bank of New South Wales (1971) 125 CLR 346. Again, there are special rules such as that set out in s 43(a) of the NSW Torrens Act: see 28.8. However, the general statement at the head of this paragraph is basically sound. [page 127]

Equitable mortgages and charges 4.24 Early in the history of the Torrens system there was some controversy in relation to the application of equitable rules to Torrens title land: see Robinson, Transfer of Land in Victoria, Law Book Co, Sydney, 1979. Whether the intention of the framers of the Torrens legislation (whether Attorney-General Torrens or the English Real Property Commissioners in effect, in their second report in 1830: see Whalan, The Torrens System in Australia, Law Book Co, Sydney, 1982, pp 4–5) was to exclude equitable rules, this has not been the approach adopted by the courts in the interpretation and application of the legislation. For example, in Barry v Heider (1914) 19 CLR 197 Isaacs J said (at 213): They [‘the Land Transfer Acts’: that is, the Torrens Acts] have long, and in every State, been regarded as in the main conveyancing enactments, and as giving greater certainty to titles of registered proprietors, but not in any way destroying the fundamental doctrines by which Courts of Equity have enforced, as against registered proprietors, conscientious obligations entered into by them.

This approach was reaffirmed by Isaacs ACJ and Gavan Duffy and Starke JJ in Groongal Pastoral Co Ltd (in liq) v Falkiner (1924) 35 CLR 157 at 163. Thus, although a literal reading of s 41(1) of the NSW Torrens Act and s 40(1) of the Victorian Torrens Act would, at first blush, appear to deny the possibility of equitable mortgages existing in Torrens land, the authorities clearly show that such interest will be upheld: London Chartered Bank of

Australia v Hayes (1871) 2 VR (Eq) 104; Re Nathan (1863) 1 SALR (App) 166; Richards v Jones (1865) 1 SALR (App) 167; Re Wildash; Ex parte Muskin (1877) 5 QSCR 46; Burrell v Hope (1871) 2 QSCR 155. See also Re Wadham (1879) 13 SALR 70; Colonial Bank of Australasia v Riddel (1893) 19 VLR 280; Plumpton v Plumpton (1886) 11 VLR 733. As to the general law, see 3.36 ff. Despite the form of a Torrens system mortgage, an unregistered mortgage can properly be described as an equitable mortgage: Windella (NSW) Pty Ltd v Hughes (1999) 49 NSWLR 158; 9 BPR 17,141. It is necessary to lodge a caveat to protect an equitable mortgage because failure to lodge a caveat to protect an equitable mortgage may cause the holder to lose priority: Barry v Heider (1914) 19 CLR 197; Abigail v Lapin [1934] AC 491; 51 CLR 58; J & H Just (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Bank of New South Wales (1971) 125 CLR 546; Clark v Raymor (Brisbane) Pty Ltd (No 2) [1982] Qd R 790. Note that unregistered mortgages take priority according to date of creation (unless the later mortgage has the superior equity: see 24.44). The date on which caveats were lodged to protect unregistered mortgages is rarely significant. An equitable charge over Torrens land may be created by a simple agreement that a creditor has liberty to lodge a caveat over the debtor’s land: Troncone v Aliperti (1994) 6 BPR 13,291; see also Murphy v Wright (1992) 5 BPR 11,734. However, it should not be assumed that all such agreements will necessarily give rise to an equitable charge. There are sometimes some odd differences between Torrens and general law mortgages. Thus in Ryan v O’Sullivan [1956] VLR 99 it was held that no obligation on the part of a mortgagor of Torrens land to execute a mortgage in registrable form is implied in a deposit of title deeds. It is questionable as to whether this is really so: see Re Nairn’s Application [1961] VR 26 at 28. Note that in Queensland s 75 of the Torrens Act states that the deposit of title deeds will constitute an equitable mortgage charge.

Second mortgages 4.25 Because the mortgagor, even after a first mortgage is registered, continues to hold a legal fee simple in the land, second and subsequent

mortgages when registered will [page 128] be mortgages at law and not merely in equity. A registered proprietor may validly give a second mortgage although not in possession of the certificate of title: Clarkson v Mutual Life Association of Australasia (1879) 5 QSCR 165. However, for practical reasons, in the ordinary case a proposed second mortgagee will obtain the first mortgagee’s consent to the second mortgage and obtain production of the certificate of title so that the mortgage may be registered. Where this cannot be done, the second mortgage will remain unregistered and will need to be protected by caveat. The court will not, without special cause, order the first mortgagee to produce the certificate of title to enable registration of the second mortgage: Ex parte McDougall [1982] Qd R 553. A second mortgagee who pays out the first mortgage is entitled to transfer of the security: Gunn v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1922) 18 Tas LR 26; see also (1929) 2 ALJ 80 (Watts). The general principle that a mortgagor cannot set up against his own encumbrance any other encumbrance created by himself (the rule in Otter v Lord Vaux (1856) 6 De GM & G 638; 43 ER 1381; and see 36.9) applies to Torrens system mortgages so that a mortgagor cannot defeat subsequent mortgages by purchasing the first mortgagee’s interest: Edwards v McDowell (1933) 50 WN (NSW) 244; R v Registrar of Titles; Ex parte Watson [1952] VLR 470; Sussman v AGC Advances Ltd (1995) 37 NSWLR 37; 7 BPR 14,312. See, however, the odd situation dealt with by the High Court in Bofinger v Kingsway Group Ltd [2009] HCA 44: (2009) 239 CLR 269; 260 ALR 71. Unless a first mortgagee with power to make further advances has actual notice of a second mortgage, the second mortgagee will not take priority over the further advances. The lodging of a caveat by the second mortgagee is insufficient to constitute actual notice: Central Mortgage Registry of Australia Ltd v Donemore Pty Ltd [1984] 2 NSWLR 128. A second mortgagee may, subject to the rights of the first mortgagee, bring proceedings in ejectment: Croft v Kennaugh [1945] VLR 40; Associated

Securities Ltd v Adorjany [1964–5] NSWR 822; see also Bree v Scott (1904) 29 VLR 692 and Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Comer (1993) 5 BPR 11,748; and see 10.11 where the matter is discussed in detail. As with a general law mortgage, sale by the first mortgagee destroys the mortgagor’s interest: see R v Registrar of Titles; Ex parte Watson [1952] VLR 470 at 476; and Baypoint Pty Ltd v Baker (1994) 6 BPR 13,687. These decisions applied the rule derived from South Eastern Railway Co v Jortin (1857) 6 HLC 425 at 435; 10 ER 1360 at 1365, for which see 20.43. Although in one sense it is appropriate to speak of the subsequent mortgagees and the mortgagor having identical interests in the fund represented by the surplus after sale (Hope v Hope [1977] NZLR 582 at 583; Avco Financial Services Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1989) 17 NSWLR 679 at 683), such thinking must not be pressed too far. Proceeds of sale are not land (Re Sabine (1958) 18 ABC 188) and are subject to the trusts and statutory provisions referred to in this paragraph. Section 58 of the NSW Torrens Act and s 77(3) of the Victorian Torrens Act provide for the disposition of the surplus proceeds of sale. Those provisions are to be read in a manner consistent with the equitable duty of the first mortgagee to account to puisne mortgagees as a trustee for any surplus: Adams v Bank of NSW [1984] 1 NSWLR 285 at 289; Bofinger v Kingsway Group Ltd [2009] HCA 44: (2009) 239 CLR 269 at 287: 260 ALR 71 at 80 [35]. It is clear that a trust exists under the general law: Charles v Day (1887) 35 Ch D 544 at 549-550; Avco Financial Services Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1989) 17 NSWLR 679; Lloyds Bank NZ Ltd v National Safety Council of Australia Victorian Division (1993) 115 ALR 93 at 102; Re Perpetual Trustees Co Ltd: Application of Chen [2010] NSWSC 808: 15 BPR 28,845; see also Baypoint Pty Ltd v Baker, above and the further discussion in 10.12. [page 129]

Second mortgages and caveats 4.26 A second mortgagee has only a limited interest in the land, an interest which cannot take priority over that of a first mortgagee. Accordingly, any

caveat lodged by a second or subsequent mortgagee cannot prevent proper action by a first mortgagee. A caveat that purports to do so will be removed. There are many cases where it has been held that absent some good evidence that a first mortgagee is not carrying out its duties when exercising power of sale, second mortgagees’ caveats will be removed almost as of course: Kerabee Park Pty Ltd v Daley [1978] 2 NSWLR 222 at 228-9; Lewenberg and Pryles v Direct Acceptance Corporation Ltd [1981] VR 344 at 347-8; Dunecar Pty Ltd v Colbron (2001) 40 ACSR 342 at 345; 70 Pitt Street Pty Ltd v McGurk [2004] NSWSC 413; Business Australia Capital Mortgage Pty Ltd v Randwick Nominees Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 643. There does not appear to be any reported Australian case where a second mortgagee’s caveat was retained against opposition by a first mortgagee, but see in New Zealand MacDiarmid v Burton (1980) 1 NZCPR 238 where the caveat was allowed to remain for the time being until the mortgagee’s plans for sale had matured.

Unregistered mortgages — caveats 4.27 The general scheme of the Torrens legislation is that unless the interest is recorded on the register it may be assumed that for all intents and purposes it does not exist. This philosophy is over-simplistic and indeed this is recognised in the legislation itself, which permits unregistered interests to be protected by caveat. A caveat (from the Latin ‘beware’) is intended to act as a statutory injunction to prevent alteration to the Torrens register until the rights of the parties have been decided in the ordinary way by a court. The Torrens Acts provide summary methods of removing unwarranted caveats. In New South Wales, the usual approach is for the registered proprietor to cause the Registrar-General to issue a Lapsing Notice pursuant to s 74J of the NSW Torrens Act. Unless the caveator has the court extend the caveat under s 74K because it has or may have substance, the caveat will lapse. If time is short, the registered proprietor can apply to the court under s 74MA for an order that the caveat be withdrawn. In Victoria, an application may be made to the Registrar of Titles to remove the caveat under s 89A of the Victorian Torrens Act. The court may remove a caveat under s 90(3) of the Act. The court, when dealing with an application to remove or extend a caveat, does not usually enter into the underlying legal issues, but will usually extend the caveat, if need be on terms as to an undertaking as to damages or

otherwise, until the parties’ rights can be determined: Ex parte Muston (1903) 3 SR (NSW) 663; Evandale Estates Pty Ltd v Keck [1963] VR 647 at 652. The court has power to remove a caveat that is perfectly good if proper substitute security is provided or if the caveat is preventing the legitimate exercise of a right over the land which can be exercised without prejudicing the interests of the caveator. An illustration is Buchanan v Crown & Gleeson Business Finance Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1465; 13 BPR 24,513 where the registered proprietor wished to refinance. The caveator was not affected by the caveat being lifted, the refinancing taking place and then a fresh caveat being lodged and the court permitted that to take place. A caveat may only be lodged by a person who has an interest in land: NSW Torrens Act s 74F; Victorian Torrens Act s 100. In New South Wales, the court is not inclined to rule on borderline cases as to what constitutes an interest in land on a summons to remove or extend a caveat: Permanent Trustee Australia Ltd v Shand (1992) 27 NSWLR 426; Jensen v Giugni (1994) 6 BPR 13,667. A stricter view seems to be taken in Victoria: see Swanston Mortgage Pty Ltd v Trepan Investments Pty Ltd [1994] 1 VR 672. There is a debate as to whether the only interests in land that may be made subject to caveat are interests which may be registered under the Act. [page 130] Despite high authority (see Miller v Minister for Mines [1963] NZLR 560 (a Privy Council appeal from New Zealand) and Classic Heights Pty Ltd v Black Hole Investments Pty Ltd (1994) V ConvR ¶54-506), the prevailing view in New South Wales is that there is no such restriction: see, for example, Re Gamboola Cabonne Properties Ltd (1919) 19 SR (NSW) 227; Composite Buyers Ltd v Soong (1995) 38 NSWLR 286. More recent cases in Victoria would now seem to indicate a similar position: see Bunning Building Supplies Pty Ltd v Sgro (1995) V ConvR ¶54-535; and Crampton v French [1996] ANZ ConvR ¶156; (1995) V ConvR ¶54-529. This less restrictive approach is preferable as it allows notice to be given of a wide class of interests in land. The contrary view adopted in Miller is not a necessary consequence of the Torrens legislation if treated primarily as a

conveyancing statute. Failure to lodge a caveat to protect an unregistered interest may result in loss of priority: see Butler v Fairclough (1917) 23 CLR 78; Person-to-Person Financial Services Pty Ltd v Sharari [1984] 1 NSWLR 745; Double Bay Newspapers Pty Ltd v AW Holdings Pty Ltd (1996) 42 NSWLR 409; 7 BPR 14,858. See also Abigail v Lapin (1934) 51 CLR 58; [1934] AC 491; J & H Just (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Bank of New South Wales (1971) 125 CLR 546. In Elderly Citizens Homes of SA Inc v Balnaves (1998) 72 SASR 210, it was a significant matter when assessing priorities that the holder of the earlier interest had filed a caveat and then had withdrawn it, a circumstance that the holder of a later equity had considered significant.

When a security holder may caveat 4.28 It is beyond the scope of this work to consider in depth what is a sufficient interest in land to support a caveat, but the following is a summary of the authorities affecting claims to maintain caveats in respect of security interests. A sufficient interest in land will exist in the following situations (this list is not exhaustive): 1. a claim to a second mortgage (subject to what has been said in 4.24 (Re The Victorian Farmers’ Loan and Agency Co Ltd (1897) 22 VLR 629); 2. a claim to a mortgage by deposit of deeds (Patchell v Maunsell (1881) 7 VLR 6; Re Elliot (1886) 7 LR (NSW) (L) 286); 3. a claim that the registered proprietor has undertaken to execute a mortgage (Re Dixon (1922) 39 WN (NSW) 89); 4. a vendor’s lien (Mihalic v Mihalic (1987) 73 ALR 304) or a purchaser’s lien (Ex parte Lord [1985] 2 Qd R 198); 5. a charge created under a building contract or other commercial contract (Griffith v Hodge (1979) 2 BPR 9474; Gibson v Co-ordinated Building Services Pty Ltd (1989) 4 BPR 9630; BridgeWholesaleAcceptance Corp (Aust) Pty Ltd v Burnard (1992) 27 NSWLR 415); 6. an equitable lien (Murphy v Wright (1992) 5 BPR 11,734; Troncone v

Aliperti (1994) 6 BPR 13,291); 7. a trustee’s lien for indemnification over real estate (Custom Credit Corporation Ltd v Ravi Nominees Pty Ltd (1992) 8 WAR 42); 8. a claim to an interest because of a constructive trust (Morling v Morling (1992) 16 Fam LR 161). A sufficient interest is not afforded by the following (again, the list is not exhaustive): 1. a claim to a security interest where equity would not grant specific performance (Investment & Merchant Finance Corp Ltd v Kirkwood Estates Ltd (1975) 5 ALR 191); [page 131] 2. where the parties did not intend to create an interest in land (Evandale Estates Pty Ltd v Keck [1963] VR 647); 3. the claim is a mere right to raise a claim in litigation (Bethian Pty Ltd v Green (1977) 3 Fam LR 11,579; Re Pile’s Caveat [1980] Qd R 81; Morling v Morling, above); 4. the claim is to a purely contractual right (Depsun Pty Ltd v Tahore Holdings Pty Ltd (1990) 5 BPR 11,314); 5. the claim is to the surplus after sale or to the proceeds of sale (Re Robertson (1907) 24 WN (NSW) 94; Re Sabine (1958) 18 ABC 188; Epple v Wilson [1972] VR 440; Re Della-Franca’s Caveat [1993] 1 Qd R 382; Baypoint Pty Ltd v Baker (1994) 6 BPR 13,687); 6. the claim is to some collateral right associated with land such as the right of a lender to receive a share of the borrower’s profits from development of the land bought with the loan funds (Simons v David Benge Motors Pty Ltd [1974]VR 585; Cid v Cortes (1987) 4 BPR 9391). A registered proprietor may in some circumstances lodge a caveat over his or her own title. Section 74F of the NSW Act spells out the circumstances,

though there is some question as to what is ‘an improper dealing’ the fear of which may justify a caveat: see Jensen v Giugni (1994) 6 BPR 13,667. In Victoria, the right appears more restricted: see Swanston Mortgage Pty Ltd v Trepan Investments Pty Ltd [1994] 1 VR 672. See, generally, Barry v Heider (1914) 19 CLR 197; Mardon v Holloway [1967] NZLR 372; Re Haupiri Courts Ltd (No 2) [1969] NZLR 353; Sinclair v Hope Investments Pty Ltd [1982] 2 NSWLR 870.

Covenants generally 4.29 The Australian Torrens Acts do not have a uniform approach to implied conditions in mortgages. Section 75 of the NSW Torrens Act implies a covenant for further assurance. There is no Victorian equivalent but there are similar provisions in Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania. The section only applies to registered instruments and no warranty of title is implied: West v Read (1913) 13 SR (NSW) 575; see also Renshaw v Moore (1917) 34 WN (NSW) 95 and Daniher v Fitzgerald (1919) 19 SR (NSW) 260. The Victorian Torrens Act by s 75 provides that there shall be implied in each mortgage covenants by the mortgagor to repay the principal on the due date, to repair and to insure. There is no New South Wales equivalent. The doctrine of indefeasibility of title means that some of the standard covenants used in general law mortgages of land are otiose. Section 80A of the NSW Torrens Act provides for memoranda of covenants to be filed in the Registrar-General’s office and the section then incorporates the provision of such memoranda if referred to in a registered mortgage as if they were incorporated into the mortgage: see 4.41. This provision saves time in preparation of mortgage documents and also assists in reducing the bulk of the register. Any provision of a memorandum whether strictly speaking it is a covenant will be deemed to be set out in the instrument: McIntosh v Goulburn City Council (1986) 3 BPR 9367; Re Westpac Banking Corp [1987] 1 Qd R 300. A person may be liable on a covenant in a mortgage even though the document is not registered: Mercantile Building Co v Murphy (1888) 4 WN (NSW) 105; Mathieson v Mercantile Finance Co (1891) 17 VLR 271. However, a person named in a mortgage, even though registered, may not be

liable on it if he or someone on his behalf has not executed it: Wellington & Manawatu Railway Co Ltd v Hazelden (1899) 18 NZLR 278. The same will apply if a forged mortgage only affects the registered proprietor [page 132] because of indefeasibility: Grgic v Australian & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1994) 33 NSWLR 202. A person may validly sign a mortgage before he has become registered proprietor and even though the certificate of title has been deposited elsewhere under an equitable mortgage: Royal Bank of Canada v Banque d’Hocheloga (1914) 7 WWR 817 (Alberta). A mortgage may validly be executed in blank (Trembatt v Carr (1897) 23 VLR 437; Arnot v Peterson (1912) 2 WWR 1 (Alberta)), though in Gilbert v Bourne (1895) 6 QLJ at 272, Harding J said such a document would be absolutely void. See also Scott on Torrens System Mortgages, The Carswell Co Ltd, Toronto, 1918, pp 19–20. There is no difficulty in a mortgagor attorning tenant to a second mortgagee: Ex parte Wilson; Re Bavister (1925) 25 SR (NSW) 375.

Variations of mortgage 4.30 Section 91(6) of the NSW Conveyancing Act makes it clear that that section permits variation of Torrens system mortgages by memorandum provided that the document is in the approved form and registered. Section 75A of the Victorian Torrens Act permits variation by registration of an appropriate approved form. Problems have occurred where the land is transferred to a new registered proprietor subject to an existing mortgage. If, after such registration, a variation of mortgage is registered without the signature of the original mortgagor, the latter will be released from liability. This is because the variation in effect makes a new contract: Re Gladstone’s Mortgage [1916] NZLR 489; Nelson Diocesan Trust Board v Hamilton [1926] NZLR 342; Paterson v Irvine [1926] NZLR 352; Perpetual Trustees Estate and Agency

Co of New Zealand Ltd v Elworthy [1926] NZLR 621; Public Trustee v Mortleman [1928] NZLR 337. If the original mortgagor signs the variation, he or she will be a surety: Grove v Public Trustee [1931] NZLR 1071. See also Dennis v Martin [1932] VLR 361 and McDonald v Gardiner [1933] VLR 129.

Custody of deeds 4.31 Although the mortgagor remains the registered proprietor of the fee simple even after a mortgage is registered on the title, in practice the mortgagee holds the certificate of title and other documents relating exclusively to the title of the property mortgaged. The term ‘title deeds’ comprehends all documents necessary to prove title: Cousins, The Law of Mortgages, 2nd ed, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2001, 16.11, p 255, but see Clayton v Clayton [1930] 2 Ch 12. There is no rule of law to this effect; the right flows either from a term of the mortgage or invariable custom. Indeed it was held in Clarkson v Mutual Life Association of Australasia (1879) 5 QSCR 165 that the mortgagee was not entitled as of right to custody of the certificate of title. In Mercantile Mutual Life Insurance Co Ltd v Gosper (1991) 25 NSWLR 32 at 49, Mahoney JA indicated that the position as to custody of the certificate of title was unclear. The right is recognised by the legislature when s 96(2) of the NSW Torrens Act makes the statutory right of a mortgagor to inspect the title deeds applicable to Torrens system mortgages: see Victorian Torrens Act s 96. Again, s 86 of the Victorian Torrens Act makes it clear that the mortgagor of Torrens system land is entitled to have the first mortgagee produce the deeds for registration of a subsequent instrument: see St Kilda Road Pty Ltd v Parker Simmonds Securities Ltd (2002) V ConvR ^54-652. These provisions would hardly make sense if the first mortgagee had no right to the deeds. Indeed, because of the dangers of permitting the mortgagor to retain the indicia of title, a mortgagee is almost bound to contract for custody of the certificate of title: see, for instance, Heid v Reliance Finance Corp Pty Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 326. Accordingly the principles set out in 3.32–3.33 apply to Torrens land. [page 133]

Postponement of mortgages 4.32 Section 56A of the NSW Torrens Act and s 75B of the Victorian Torrens Act provide for a mortgage to be postponed to a later interest or for the priority between mortgagees to be altered by registered memorandum. In New South Wales it has been held that postponement under such a memorandum reverses the order of registration: AMEV Finance Ltd v Auscott Ltd (1988) 5 BPR 11,386.

Transfer of mortgages 4.33 Section 46 of the NSW Torrens Act and s 45 of the Victorian Torrens Act provide for transfer of mortgages. Although the sections use language which is in form permissory or facultative, in effect the words are peremptory and exclusive: Crowley v Templeton (1914) 17 CLR 457 at 463; see also Smith v National Trust Co [1912] 1 DLR 698. The statutes give to the transfer the same effect as a statutory memorandum under the general law: see NSW Torrens Act ss 51 and 52, Victorian Torrens Act ss 45(2) and 46(1); and see 14.1–14.11. In Canada it has been held that the Torrens Acts do not change the law in respect of transfer of mortgages. Thus the assignee takes subject to equities and if no money was lent (see 1.7) or the mortgagee had a set-off against the transferor, the assignee will not be able to take advantage of the fact that it holds a registered mortgage: McCurdy Supply Co Ltd v Doyle (1956) 20 WWR 125 at 130–1; Toronto-Dominion Bank v Block Bros Contractors Ltd (1980) 118 DLR (3d) 311 at 319.

Merger under the Torrens system 4.34 In Beavan v Dobson (1906) 26 NZLR 69, it was held that the doctrine of merger of estates applied to Torrens system land. In Fink v Robertson (1907) 4 CLR 864 at 877, the High Court held that if a mortgagor transferred the mortgaged land to the mortgagee, the mortgage was extinguished: compare English Scottish and Australian Bank Ltd v Phillips (1937) 57 CLR 302, referred to in 36.11. Merger will occur when the registered proprietor of a lease becomes registered proprietor of the fee simple: Smith v Davy (1884) 2 NZLR (SC)

398. In Lewis v Keene (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 493 at 506, it was held that merger takes place even if the leasehold is land under the Torrens system while the fee simple is not so registered; and see Radin v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1999] FCA 748.

Further advances and tacking 4.35 A Torrens mortgage may make provision for further advances and at least provided that at the time the further advance was made the mortgagee had no notice of any subsequent charges, the advance would be tacked onto, or covered by the security of, the mortgage: see Hopkinson v Rolt (1861) 9 HLC 514; 11 ER 829; and see 25.7–25.8. In Matzer v Clyde Securities Ltd [1975] 2 NSWLR 293, Holland J held that the rule in Hopkinson v Rolt applied to Torrens system mortgages. It has thereafter been assumed in the cases that the whole doctrine of tacking applies to Torrens mortgages: see, for example, Philos Pty Ltd v National Bank of Australasia Ltd (1976) 5 BPR 11,810 (Bowen CJ in Eq); Bank of New Zealand v Development Finance Corp of New Zealand [1988] 1 NZLR 495. This assumption raises the considerable theoretical difficulties expounded in Chapter 25, but as the basic principle is now established, these difficulties of detail need to be worked out in subsequent cases.

Position on default 4.36 The Torrens system mortgage does not confer on a mortgagee a right of possession as an incident of a transfer. The effect of s 60 of the NSW Torrens Act is, in the words [page 134] of Jordan CJ, ‘to put the mortgagee, but only upon default of the mortgagor, in the same position as regards the three matters mentioned as he would be under an old system mortgage’: Ex parte Jackson; Re Australasian Catholic Assurance Co Ltd (1941) 41 SR (NSW) 285 at 289. The Victorian provision s 78 is in different terms, but is essentially the same in operation. It empowers the mortgagee to enter into possession or to

bring an action in ejectment to ‘recover’ the land. In Falk v Haugh [1935] VLR 20 at 24, the Full Court held that there was no suggestion in the Torrens Act of any attempt to alter the general law governing the contract of mortgage. Thus the rights of the mortgagee on default are the same as with a general law mortgage. See also Croft v Kennaugh [1945] VLR 40; Figgins Holdings Pty Ltd v SEAA Enterprises Pty Ltd (1999) 196 CLR 245; and 19.2 ff. The statutes generally put the Torrens system mortgagee in the same position as if he had a conveyance of the legal estate (see 19.5 ff and 28.4). In United Starr-Bowkett Co-op Building Society (No 11) Ltd v Clyne (1967) 68 SR (NSW) 331 at 347, Walsh JA said that ‘the notional legal estate thus treated as vested in him for this purpose must be regarded as subject to any prior legal interest in someone other than the registered proprietor by which the mortgagee is bound’. Thus (at 349): … although the mortgagee does not succeed to the estate of the mortgagor… he succeeds to, that is becomes entitled and subject to the mortgagor’s rights and duties as between himself and the tenant, under a lease granted by the mortgagor prior to the mortgagee. This does not mean that he automatically succeeds to those rights and duties as soon as his mortgage is registered. But, if, after default, he wishes to take steps to recover possession, he does so on the basis of a succession to the rights which the mortgagor formerly had against the tenant.

Where there is more than one mortgage, the Torrens Act operates so as to give the statutory right of an earlier mortgage priority over similar statutory rights given to subsequent mortgagees: Reliance Finance Corp Pty Ltd v Orwin (1964) 82 WN (NSW) (Pt 1) 11. It should be particularly noted that the procedure for foreclosure in respect of Torrens system land is completely different from that employed with respect to all other mortgages: see 22.53–22.56.

Exercise of power of sale 4.37 Legislation in all jurisdictions provides for a power of sale for a mortgagee under a Torrens system mortgage. In New South Wales s 58(1) of its Torrens Act gives power to the mortgagee or chargee to sell the land mortgaged or charged, or any part thereof, and all the estate and interest therein of the mortgagor or charger, and either together or in lots by public auction or by private contract, or both such modes of sale, and subject to such conditions as he may think fit, and to buy in and resell the same without

being liable for any loss occasioned thereby. The mortgagee or chargee may make and execute all such instruments as shall be necessary for effecting the sale, all which sales, contracts, matters and things authorised by the section shall be as valid and effectual as if the mortgagor or charger had made, done or executed the same, and the receipt or receipts in writing of the mortgagee or chargee shall be a sufficient discharge to the purchaser of such land, estate or interest, or of any portion thereof, for so much of his purchase money as may be thereby expressed to be received. Section 58(2) provides that no such purchaser shall be answerable for the loss, misapplication or non-application or be obliged to see to the application of the purchase money paid by him, nor shall he be concerned to inquire as to the fact of any default or notice having been made or served or referred to in s 57(2). By the latter provision a registered mortgagee or chargee may, subject to the Act, exercise the power of sale conferred by s 58 in circumstances similar to those set out above in s 111(2) of the Conveyancing Act 1919: see 20.12. [page 135] Notice may be dispensed with, except for defaults relating to payment, where the dispensation is by agreement expressed in the mortgage: see s 58A. By the same provision lapse of time may be dispensed with. Such dispensation must be in clear terms but a clearly expressed general dispensation may be effective: Khalid v Perpetual Ltd [2012] NSWCA 153; (2012) 16 BPR 31,225 and see Topfelt Pty Ltd v State Bank of NSW Ltd (1993) 6 BPR 13,209 (CA) and Notaras v Sly & Weigall (2005) 12 BPR 23,765 (CA). A different result may follow with a clause differently framed: see Farrow Mortgage Services Pty Ltd v Regatta Development Services Pty Ltd (1993) 32 NSWLR 333 at 340-1. In Victoria, if default is made in payment of the principal sum or interest secured or any part thereof, or in the performance or observance of any covenant, express or implied, in any registered mortgage or charge, and continues for one month or such other period as is therein expressly fixed, the mortgagee may serve on the mortgagor, or on such other persons as appear by the Register Book to be affected, notice in writing to pay the money owing or to perform and observe the covenants, as the case may be: Victorian

Torrens Act s 76(1). Where money secured by any such mortgage is made payable on demand, a demand in writing pursuant to the mortgage shall, for the purposes of the Act, be equivalent to serving such notice: s 76(2); see also WA Torrens Act s 107. If, within one month after the service of such notice or demand (or such other period as is fixed in such mortgage or charge) the mortgagor or other persons do not comply with the notice or demand, the mortgagee may, in good faith and having regard to the interests of the mortgagor or other persons, sell or concur with any other person in selling the mortgaged or charged land or any part thereof. The mortgagee may sell the land in one or several lots, by public auction or by private contract, at one or several times, and for a sum payable in one amount or by installments, subject to such terms and conditions as the mortgagee thinks fit, with power to vary any contract for sale and to buy in at any auction or to rescind any contract for sale and to resell without being answerable for any loss occasioned thereby. The mortgagee also has power to make such roads, streets and passages and to grant and reserve such easements as the circumstances of the case require and the mortgagee thinks fit, and may make and sign such transfers and do such acts and things as are necessary for effectuating any such sale: s 77(1) Victorian Torrens Act. Notice probably cannot be dispensed with in Victoria. In Queensland notice cannot be dispensed with: see Queensland Act s 84(3); see also 20.12. In South Australia and Western Australia notice probably cannot be dispensed with, for the same reason as in Victoria, namely that the power of sale is a direct power given by the legislation, not (as is the case for general land law mortgages) an implied power, and is not in terms capable of being excluded, though the period of the notice is in terms expressed to be capable of variation. In Tasmania notice or lapse of time may be dispensed with by agreement expressed in the mortgage or otherwise: Tasmanian Torrens Act s 80. For the legislation in other jurisdictions see Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) s 83(1)(a), applied to Torrens mortgages by Property Law Act 1974 s 77(1)(b) (i); Real Property Act 1886 (SA) s 133; Tasmanian Torrens Act s 78; WA Torrens Act s 108. It is important to note that, except in Queensland, only a mortgagee with a

registered mortgage can exercise the statutory power of sale: Midland Montagu Australia Ltd v Cuthbertson (1989) 17 NSWLR 309 at 313; Residential Housing Corporation v Esber (2011) 80 NSWLR 69 at 83, 85. However, the exercise of the power of sale may be commenced before the mortgage has been registered — for example a default notice may be given, but the interest of the mortgagor cannot pass to the purchaser unless the mortgage is registered: Mathieson v Mercantile Finance Trustees and Agency Co Ltd (1891) 17 VLR 271; Brunker v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd (1937) 57 CLR 555 at 581; Mercantile Credits Ltd v Archbold [1970] QWN 9; Caretta Stud Nominees Pty Ltd v White (1982) 29 SASR 597; Midland Montague Australia Ltd v Cuthbertson. See, generally, Croft and Hay pp 47–51. [page 136]

Discharge of Torrens system mortgages 4.38 The Torrens system legislation provides for the discharge of registered mortgages and charges by an appropriate form of acknowledgment of payment and discharge. Section 65 of the NSW Torrens Act provides that whenever a mortgage or charge registered under that Act is intended to be discharged wholly or partially the mortgagee or chargee shall execute a discharge in the approved form: s 65(1). The form acknowledges receipt of the whole or part, as appropriate, of the mortgage money in full, or partial, satisfaction and discharge of the mortgage. Section 84 of the Victorian Torrens Act provides that upon production of a memorandum signed by the mortgagee discharging the land or part thereof from the whole or part of the moneys secured, the Registrar shall make an entry to that effect upon the certificate of title and duplicate thereof and upon the mortgage or charge and any duplicate thereof, and thereupon the land or the portion of land described in the memorandum shall cease to be subject to or liable for such moneys or for such part thereof: s 84(1). Notwithstanding that no memorandum of discharge is produced, where the Registrar is satisfied that all principal and interest has been paid to the person entitled and

that person is dead or absent from the state or cannot be found, he may make such entry as aforesaid discharging the mortgage: s 84(2). For discharge in other jurisdictions, see Queensland Torrens Act s 81; SA Torrens Act s 143; Tasmanian Torrens Act s 89; WA Torrens Act s 123. The memorandum, endorsement etc, of discharge can only be effectively signed by the registered proprietor: Re Nicholas (1951) 68 WN (NSW) 193. The discharge is not effective until the appropriate entry has been made on the register: Taylor v Wolfe & Co (1892) 18 VLR 727; Bree v Scott (1904) 29 VLR 692. Notwithstanding that the discharge was forged, upon registration of the discharge the land ceases to be charged with the moneys secured by the mortgage: Schulz v Corwill Properties Pty Ltd (1969) 90 WN (NSW) 529; Grundy v Ley [1984] 2 NSWLR 467; cf Clements v Ellis (1934) 51 CLR 217. This is also the case where the registration of the discharge occurs through a mistake or inadvertence on the part of the registered mortgagee (State Bank of New South Wales v Berowra Waters Holdings Pty Ltd (1986) 4 NSWLR 398; cf Trustees and Executor Co Ltd v Bagot’s Executor and Trustee Co Ltd [1964] SASR 306), which turns on the wording of s 64 of the South Australian Torrens Act. For correction of the register where a discharge was registered in error in disregard of a caveat, see FNCB-Walton Finance Ltd v Crest Realty Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 621.

General law principles applicable to discharges 4.39 Most of the statutory provisions and rules of law set out in this work applicable to the discharge of mortgages under the Old System (see Chapter 32) apply to mortgages under the Torrens legislation. Most of the equitable rules as to discharge also apply. Thus the six months rule detailed in 32.36 ff applies to Torrens system mortgages: Friend v Mayer [1982] VR 941. Likewise, a binding contract of sale destroys the ‘equity of redemption’ under a Torrens system mortgage: Chia v Rennie (1997) 8 BPR 15,601.

Limitation Act problems 4.40 Under the general law, at the expiration of the specified period (and assuming an ordinary case where no special circumstances apply, such as the mortgaged land being held on trust for sale) the title of the mortgagor is

extinguished: Limitations Act 1969 (NSW) s 65 (on earlier limitation legislation, see Addison v Billion [1983] 1 NSWLR 586); Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) s 18. The title of subsequent mortgages is also extinguished: Young v Clarey [1948] Ch 191; [1948] 1 All ER 197. See 32.84 ff. [page 137] The Torrens system mortgagor may also lose his title after the expiration of the relevant limitation period. Section 45D of the NSW Torrens Act provides that where a person is in possession of land under the Act and the title of the registered proprietor would have been extinguished as against that person in possession of the land had the statutes of limitation applied, then that person may apply to be registered as proprietor. This provision applies to the mortgagee in possession to bar the mortgagor’s action for redemption: see Addison v Billion [1983] 1 NSWLR 586. In Victoria adverse possession is a specific exception to the paramountcy of the registered title: see Victorian Torrens Act s 42. The right of the mortgagor to redeem has been held to fall within an action to redeem or compel discharge for the purposes of s 15 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958: Re Forrest Trust; Trustees, Executors & Agency Co Ltd v Anson [1953] VLR 246. For other jurisdictions, see Queensland Torrens Act ss 98–108, especially s 108; SA Torrens Act s 251 (see Re Kay [1969] SASR 1); Tasmanian Torrens Act s 40(3)(h); WA Torrens Act s 222. The topic is discussed in detail in Sykes and Walker, pp 941–51.

Standard clauses in Torrens system mortgages (New South Wales) 4.41 Section 80A of the NSW Torrens Act allows for the filing of standard memoranda of conditions which shall apply to all relevant mortgages. Memorandum Q860000, which is set out below, is a memorandum under this section composed by the Registrar-General himself. As to the effect of s 80A, see McIntosh v Goulburn City Council (1985) 3 BPR 9367. Clause 5 of the memorandum was construed by the Full Federal Court in Elders Trustee & Executor Co Ltd v E G Reeves Pty Ltd (1988) 20 FCR 164; 84 ALR 734.

Clause 7 overcomes the problem, dealt with in Ross v Victorian Permanent Building Society (1882) 8 VLR (Eq) 254 at 266 and Gesualdi v Serenar Nominees Pty Ltd [1993] V ConvR ¶54-478, that a mortgagee may not sell properties belonging to different mortgagors in the one sale. This problem is in fact cured for New South Wales by the power conferred on mortgagees by s 104 of the NSW Conveyancing Act, which applies also to Torrens system land. The provisions of Memorandum Q860000 are as follows: 1. Except with the written consent of the mortgagee the mortgagor will not apply for or obtain from the Crown or from any statutory authority any money or material or otherwise do or suffer to be done anything whereby any charge or liability shall or might be imposed on the mortgaged land or any part thereof in priority to or in derogation of this security. 2. The mortgagor will insure and keep insured against loss or damage by fire all buildings now or hereafter erected on the mortgaged land in the name of the mortgagee for indemnity of the mortgagee or of the mortgagee and the mortgagor in the full insurable value in some insurance office approved by the mortgagee, and in the event of loss the mortgagee alone shall have power to settle and compromise any claim against any insurance company (without being responsible for any loss occasioned thereby) and the sum received on account of such insurance shall be applicable either in or towards repair or rebuilding or in or towards repayment of the mortgage debt at the option of the mortgagee, and the mortgagor will hand the policy or policies evidencing such insurance and all receipts for moneys paid and other usual evidence of insurance to the mortgagee immediately upon the issue thereof. If at any time the mortgagor is entitled to the benefit of an insurance on the buildings for the time being comprised in the mortgage which is not effected or maintained in pursuance of his obligation aforesaid then all moneys received by virtue of such insurance shall, if the mortgagee so requires, be applied at the option of the mortgagee either in making good the damage or loss in respect of which the same shall have been received or be paid to the mortgagee and be applied by the mortgagee in or towards repayment of the mortgage debts. 3. The mortgagor will during the continuance of this security, whether the mortgagee shall or shall not have entered upon and taken possession of the mortgaged land, make such repairs as may be necessary for keeping the buildings now or hereafter to be erected on the mortgaged land in good and tenantable repair, order and condition, and in particular [page 138] will, whenever the mortgagee considers it necessary, paint in a proper and workmanlike manner to the satisfaction of the mortgagee such parts of the mortgaged premises as are usually painted and will, on being required by the mortgagee so to do, forthwith amend every defect in the repair and condition thereof, and will forthwith carry out all work that may be ordered by any competent public, local, shire or municipal authority in respect thereof, and pay all rates, taxes, charges, outgoings, and assessments (including any land or property tax) that may now or at any time be or become chargeable or be assessed or become due upon or in respect of the mortgaged land or any part thereof, under or in pursuance of the provisions of any Act or Ordinance of the Commonwealth of Australia or

the State of New South Wales, or any regulation thereunder now in force or that may come into operation during the continuance of this security, and will at all times indemnify and keep indemnified the mortgagee from the payment of such rates, charges, outgoings, and assessments, and every or any part thereof, and from all claims and demands in respect thereof, and the mortgagee shall at all reasonable times during the continuance of this security be at liberty with or without surveyors or others to enter into and upon the mortgaged land and view and inspect the state of repair of the buildings and improvements thereon. 4. In case the mortgagor shall at any time fail to keep the buildings so insured and in good tenantable repair, order and condition, or to carry out all work that may be ordered by any competent public, local, shire or municipal authority in respect thereof or of the mortgaged land or any part thereof, or to pay such rates, taxes, charges, outgoings and assessments as aforesaid or any part thereof it shall be lawful for but not obligatory upon the mortgagee to effect and maintain such insurance, repairs and order and to do such work and to pay such rates, taxes, charges, outgoings and assessments or part thereof, as the case may be, and all moneys or payments so expended or made shall be repayable by the mortgagor upon demand and be deemed principal moneys covered by this security, and shall carry interest until such repayment at such higher rate as may be shown in the schedule to the mortgage. 5. In addition to all costs and expenses which the mortgagor may be liable at law or in equity to pay in respect of this security, or otherwise in relation thereto, the mortgagor will upon demand pay all costs and expenses, including costs as between solicitor and client, incurred by the mortgagee in consequence or on account of any default on the part of the mortgagor hereunder or incurred by the mortgagee for the preservation of or in any manner in reference to this security, all of which costs and expenses shall from the time of payment or expenditure thereof respectively until repaid to the mortgagee by the mortgagor be deemed principal moneys covered by this security, and shall carry interest at such higher rate as may be shown in the schedule to the mortgage. 6. Upon default being made in payment at the respective times and in the manner shown in the mortgage of the principal sum or any part thereof, or of the interest thereon or any part thereof, or upon default being made in the observance or performance of any of the covenants contained herein or in the mortgage or implied therein by the Real Property Act, 1900, or the Conveyancing Act, 1919, the mortgagee shall (notwithstanding any omission, neglect or waiver of the right to exercise all or any of such powers on any former occasion) be at liberty to exercise all or any of the powers of a mortgagee under the said Acts immediately upon or at any time after default as hereinbefore mentioned, subject however to compliance with any requirements of the said Acts in respect of the exercise of such powers. If at any time default shall be made in the due payment of the interest on any of the days when the same respectively shall become payable or within the time thereafter mentioned in the schedule to the mortgage, or, if the power of sale given to the mortgagee under either of the said Acts shall become exercisable, then the principal sum shall immediately become due and the mortgagor will thereafter pay the same on demand. 7. Upon sale or lease by the mortgagee under the aforesaid powers the mortgaged land or any part thereof may be sold or leased together with other property in mortgage from the mortgagor to the mortgagee, whether (if land) under the Real Property Act or not, by one contract and one price or at one rent or in any other manner that the mortgagee may deem expedient. Provided that the mortgagee shall fairly and equitably apportion all costs, expenses. purchase moneys and rents between the several subjects of the sale or lease, but a failure to make such apportionment shall not affect the purchaser or lessee or the title to the land sold or leased.

[page 139] 8. Upon sale the mortgagee shall be at liberty to allow a purchaser any time for payment of the whole or any part of the purchase money with or without interest and either with or without taking security therefor. 9. In applying the purchase money towards satisfaction of the moneys for the time being owing on the security of the mortgage the mortgagor shall be credited only with so much of the said moneys available for that purpose as shall be received in cash by the mortgagee, such credit to date from the time of such receipt and all purchase money left outstanding on credit or otherwise shall, until actually received by the mortgagee in cash, be deemed a continuing unsatisfied part of the principal money secured by the mortgage, and carry interest accordingly, provided that any interest paid by the purchaser shall be set off pro tanto against the interest secured by the mortgage and the mortgagee shall be in no way liable for any such outstanding moneys or for any loss occasioned by the exercise of such power of sale. 10. The mortgagee shall, so long as any moneys shall remain owing on this security, have and retain possession of the Crown Grant or Certificate of Title for the mortgaged land and of any Certificate of Title for the mortgaged land and of any Certificate of Title to be hereafter issued in substitution therefor, whether to a purchaser of the equity of redemption or otherwise. 11. All powers, rights and remedies implied in favour of or conferred upon mortgagees by the Conveyancing Act, 1919, or the Real Property Act, 1900, shall be in enlargement and not in curtailment of the powers, rights and remedies conferred by these presents, and sub-sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of section 106 of the Conveyancing Act, 1919, shall not apply to a lease by the mortgagee, and also the mortgagor shall not be entitled to exercise the power of leasing conferred by that section without the previous written consent of the mortgagee. 12. Service of any notice required or authorised by these presents may be effected in the manner permitted by section 170 of the Conveyancing Act, 1919. 13. Every covenant expressed or implied in these presents and by which more persons than one covenant shall, unless the contrary intention is expressed, bind such persons, and every two or greater number of them jointly and each of them severally, and every reference in these presents to the Real Property Act, 1900, or the Conveyancing Act, 1919, shall be construed as including every Act amending or in substitution for the Act referred to.

Note: If any provision is not intended to apply to a particular mortgage, the application of that provision to the mortgage should be expressly negatived, and, if desired, substitute provisions inserted in an annexure or schedule to the mortgage.

[page 140]

Chapter 5

Security Interests in Personal Property covered by the PPSA This chapter was written by Clare Langford LLB (Hons I). The author would like to thank David Lewis and Robert Turnbull for their helpful comments and support.

I

Background Terminology Statutory interpretation issues Comparative law Other interpretive aids II Application of the PPSA Connection with Australia Transitional provisions Property within the PPSA Classification of personal property Excluded transactions Interaction between the PPSA and the common law III Security interests under the PPSA A. ‘In substance’ security interests

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14

Transaction Interest in personal property Secures payment or performance Sale transactions Lease transactions Trusts B. ‘Deemed’ security interests Transferee of an account or chattel paper Consignor under a commercial consignment Lessor or bailor under a PPS lease Definition of PPS lease C. Characterisation of the PPSA security interest IV Creation and protection of security interests A. Attachment Value or an act by which the security interest arises Grantor has rights in the collateral

5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 5.19 5.20 5.21 5.22 5.23 5.24 5.25 5.26 5.27 5.28 5.29 5.30

[page 141]

Automatic attachment After-acquired property Proceeds Returned collateral following transaction under which transferee took free Effect of attachment: fate of the floating charge B. Enforceability against third parties Security agreement evidenced by writing

5.31 5.32 5.33 5.34 5.35 5.36 5.37

Writing requirements Signature requirements Possession or perfection by control C. Perfection Perfection by possession Actual possession only Possession by third parties Possession for enforcement purposes Possession of certain kinds of personal property Possession of negotiable instruments Possession of chattel paper Possession of certificated investment instruments Perfection by control Control of ADI accounts Control of intermediated securities, investment instruments, letters of credit and uncertificated negotiable instruments Perfection by registration ‘Otherwise perfected’ Commingled goods Proceeds Goods in the possession of a bailee Goods repossessed by grantor or transferee of chattel paper Temporary perfection Proceeds Goods in the possession of a bailee returned to the grantor or debtor

5.38 5.39 5.40 5.41 5.42 5.43 5.44 5.45 5.46 5.47 5.48 5.49 5.50 5.51 5.52 5.53 5.54 5.55 5.56 5.57 5.58 5.59 5.60 5.61

Negotiable documents of title in transit Negotiable instruments and investment instruments returned to the grantor or debtor Collateral relocated to Australia Collateral transferred to transferee who does not take free Collateral returned following transfer under which transferee took free Returned collateral following transfer of a related account or chattel paper: the ‘deemed goods security interest’ V Priority rules A. Overview B. Default priority rules Perfected security interest versus unperfected security interest Unperfected security interest versus unperfected security interest Perfected security interest versus perfected security interest Security interests perfected by registration only Security interests perfected otherwise than by registration Mixed disputes

5.62 5.63

5.64 5.65 5.66 5.67 5.68 5.69 5.70 5.71 5.72 5.73 5.74 5.75 5.76

[page 142]

‘First perfects by possession or control’

5.77

Change in the mode of perfection C. Super-priority: the PMSI Definition of purchase money security interest (PMSI) Seller’s PMSI Lender’s PMSI Lessor or bailor’s PMSI and consignor’s PMSI Exemptions: s 14(2), (2A) Mixed PMSIs Refinancing PMSI versus non-PMSI Lender’s PMSI versus non-lender’s PMSI D. Super-priority: control E. Special priority rules and miscellaneous provisions Subordination agreements VI Loss of security interest A. Accessions and commingling Accessions Protection of security interests in accessions Interaction with priority rules Enforcement of interests in accessions Consequences for persons, other than secured parties, with an interest in the whole Commingling Conflict between interest in component and interest in mass Conflicts involving multiple interests in components B. Taking free rules Unperfected security interests

5.78 5.79 5.80 5.81 5.82 5.83 5.84 5.85 5.86 5.87 5.88 5.89 5.90 5.91 5.92 5.93 5.94 5.95 5.96 5.97 5.98 5.99 5.100 5.101 5.102 5.103

Buyer or lessee of goods in the ordinary course of business Liquid property Temporarily perfected security interests Low-value consumer property Serial-numbered goods Knowledge Residual protection for secured parties C. Insolvency Vesting of unperfected security interests on insolvency Future property Exceptions to vesting provision Amendments to the Corporations Act: deadline for the registration of filing statements The circulating asset Definition of circulating asset Control VII Enforcement of security interests A. Application of PPSA remedies Duty of good faith Limitation on rights of secured party

5.104 5.105 5.106 5.107 5.108 5.109 5.110 5.111 5.112 5.113 5.114 5.115 5.116 5.117 5.118 5.119 5.120 5.121 5.122

[page 143]

B. Remedies available to secured parties Seizure Default by the debtor

5.123 5.124 5.125

Notice? Secured party may seize by legal methods Obligation to retain or dispose of collateral Disposal Duty to obtain market value Sale to self Purchaser takes free on resale Distribution of proceeds Retention C. Rights of the grantor and other secured parties Redemption Reinstatement D. Miscellaneous provisions Enforcement of obligations secured by land and personal property Enforcement of security interests in liquid assets

5.126 5.127 5.128 5.129 5.130 5.131 5.132 5.133 5.134 5.135 5.136 5.137

5.138 5.139

I Background 5.1 The Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) is the latest manifestation of a form of Personal Property Securities legislation in force throughout much of the common law world. A brief history of this legislation appears below: see 5.3. For ease of reference, the key Acts upon which the Australian Act is based are: Personal Property Securities Act 1999 (NZ) (NZ PPSA); Personal Property Security Act SS 1993, c P-62 (Sask PPSA); Personal Property Security Act RSBC 1996, c 359 (BC PPSA); Personal Property Security Act RSA 2000, c P-7 (Alb PPSA);

Personal Property Security Act SNS 1995–6, c 13 (NS PPSA); Personal Property Security Act CCSM c P35 (Man PPSA); Personal Property Security Act RSO 1990, c P 10 (Ont PPSA); and Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9 – Secured Transactions. The ‘distinctive feature’ of these Acts is the ‘adoption of a unitary concept of security which replace[s] the complexity of security forms and devices that prevailed under the prior law’: Bridge, Macdonald et al, ‘Formalism, Functionalism and Understanding the Law of Secured Transactions’ (1999) 44 McGill LJ 567 at 567. The underlying philosophy is that all transactions which perform the same function should be subject to a single legal framework. ‘Consequently, a security interest is defined in purely functional terms as an interest in personal property which secures payment or performance of an obligation’: ibid. As Bridge, Macdonald et al note (at 572– 4), the original drafters of Article 9 of the UCC (from which all subsequent Personal Property Securities legislation derives) were in part merely: … codify[ing] Equity’s time-honoured willingness to look behind the form of a debtor-creditor property transfer in order to decide its true character … [However], their goal was also far

[page 144] more ambitious. They sought nothing less than to detach the legal entailments of security from conventional property analysis … Not only the form of the transaction but also the location of title to the collateral — and by implication its proprietary quality — where rejected as indicia of security. Functionalism, which respects the parties’ bargain and is sensitive, not to metaphysical property constructs, but to the interest of third parties, was henceforth to be the only reliable guide to modern secured financing law. This approach leads to the discouragement of sham transfers and the curing of ostensible ownership and ‘false wealth’ problems, the promotion of certainty and predictability in the resolution of priority disputes, and the protection of the interest of the debtor and any subordinate third parties in the collateral at the point of enforcement.

Thus the Act generally adopts a ‘functional’ definition of security: see s 12(1). Traditional forms of security over personal property (including chattel mortgages, pledges and charges) are treated as equivalent to forms previously recognised as ‘quasi-security’ (including conditional sale agreements and

hire-purchase agreements). Indeed, it has been suggested that the functional definition extends even beyond quasi-security transactions to relationships which at general law would have been characterised as purely contractual: see below 5.14 (‘In substance’ security interests). Additionally, the ancillary rationale of ‘curing ostensible ownership and ‘false wealth’ problems’ has led to the express inclusion of certain true ownership interests arising out of transactions that do not perform the function of security, but which cloak the obligee with the indicia of ownership: see s 12(3). Section 3 (Guide to this Act) provides a summary of the structure of the PPSA. While a helpful point of reference, the summary does not pick out which are the core or general provisions and which are the ancillary or specific provisions; the result is a rather daunting set of provisions whose relation to each other is not immediately clear. The scheme of the PPSA only emerges on closer inspection. A useful approach is to ‘attempt to formulate a series of questions directed at gaining an understanding of the nature, scope and operation of the personal property security interest (PPSI)’: McCracken, ‘Getting to Grips with the Reforms to Personal Property Securities Law’ (2011) 25(3) Commercial Law Quarterly 3 at 4. In that article, Professor McCracken suggests the following questions (also at p 4): Does a PPSI exist? [That is, does the transaction fall within the PPSA?] When is a PPSI effective? [That is, has the secured party taken the steps required to render its interest enforceable, and has it availed itself of modes of the protections offered by the Act?] What is the ranking of a PPSI? [That is, what is the priority of the PPSI?] What is the reach of a PPSI? [That is, has the PPSI been extinguished or lost?] What remedies does a PPSI confer? [That is, what may a secured party do on default?] The structure of this chapter loosely adopts this useful approach. The advent of the PPSA is likely to require a greater engagement with comparative law than most Australian practitioners may be used to. At the time of writing, only a handful of judgments relating to the PPSA have been handed down in this country. Most refer to the Act in a tangential fashion,

and only a couple discuss its core concepts: see Re Maiden Civil (P&E) Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 852 per Brereton J; Re Barclays Bank plc [2012] NSWSC 1095 per Black J. It will take many years for Australian case law to develop to such an extent that the Act can be interpreted without having regard to the experience of other common law countries. That said, the practice of comparative law presents both opportunities and challenges: see below 5.3. [page 145] In many ways, the Act turns pre-PPSA commercial law on its head. In some ways, however, the Act is designed to mimic, or make clearer, an outcome that would have prevailed at general law in any case. It is vitally important to keep an open mind when approaching each provision, and to bear in mind the scheme of the Act as a whole in carrying into effect a ‘functional’ concept of security. Early Canadian cases sometimes demonstrated a failure to appreciate the breadth of the changes wrought by the PPSA, particularly with respect to the floating charge and the operation of the rule nemo dat quod non habet: see, for example, Access Advertising Management Inc v Servex Computers Inc (1993) 15 OR (3d) 635 and Sprung Instant Structures v Caswan Environmental Services Inc [1998] 6 WWR 535. The teething period appears to have been somewhat shorter in New Zealand, no doubt thanks to the Canadian experience. In New Zealand Bloodstock Limited v Waller [2005] NZCA 254; [2006] 3 NZLR 629, the interest of a long-term lessor was held to rank below that of the lessee’s chargee, notwithstanding the former had title. The comments of Robertson and Baragwanath JJ at [18] are instructive: Cautionary cases which Mr Dale’s argument [for the debenture-holder] brings to mind include A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 where at levels below the House of Lords there had been a failure to put aside old learning and to recognise that the provision for separate legal identity of the company … must be given literal effect. Likewise in Frazer v Walker [1967] NZLR 1069; [1967] 1 AC 569 it was perhaps easier for the fifth member of the Board, Sir Garfield Barwick, to appreciate Sir Robert Torrens’ concept of registration as the root of title than for the English Law Lords, to whom the notion that a forged mortgage could by registration deprive a landowner of his title was no doubt counter-intuitive.

Terminology

5.2 The Act contains an array of defined terms; some are of little moment, but others, such as the ‘PPS lease’ and the ‘circulating asset’, are so important they enjoy their own section. For better or worse, the Act uses a number of familiar terms. Some of these are defined, and the definition often diverges from the general meaning of the term; ‘land’, for example, does not include fixtures: s 10 (‘land’). Some are not defined, such as ‘subrogation’, ‘redemption’, and ‘traceable’ property. In these cases, it is unclear whether, and to what extent, the Act seeks to import general law principles relating to these concepts: see s 254 (concurrent operation of other laws). The Act also contains terms that may be relatively unfamiliar to the Australian lawyer. Two important examples are ‘chattel paper’ and the ‘trust receipt’. The former is a new type of property, being a physical document that is the ‘embodiment’ of a transaction (typically, a lease or hire-purchase agreement). Both the debt and the underlying goods involved may be dealt with through dealing with the physical document, so that a person who takes a security interest over chattel paper (embodying, for example, a lease) takes an interest both in the obligations owed to the lessor and the lessor’s interest in the underlying goods: see Harris and Mirzai, Annotated Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (2011), CCH Australia Limited, p 57 [12.5.3.1] and below 5.22. Transfers of chattel paper are a kind of ‘deemed’ security interest: s 12(3). The ‘trust receipt’, which is not a defined term, refers to a kind inventory financing in vogue in the United States prior to the introduction of Article 9. Under this transaction, the secured creditor releases collateral to the debtor in exchange for a trust receipt, signed by the debtor, indicating that he or she holds the collateral on trust for the secured creditor: see Duggan and Brown, Australian Personal Property Securities Law, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2012, p 47 [3.11]. The ‘trust receipt’ is listed in s 12(2) as an example of a transaction that gives rise to a security interest.

Statutory interpretation issues 5.3 The PPSA is the latest in a long series of Personal Property Securities legislation in force in common law jurisdictions since the 1950s. It has a distinct theoretical underpinning, as emphasised by the prominence of academic texts in many judgements

[page 146] in other jurisdictions. In light of these unique elements, it is useful to outline here the problems and opportunities associated with the practice of comparative law in the context of statutory interpretation. There will also be a brief discussion of the use of guides, notes and extraneous material in interpreting the PPSA.

Comparative law 5.4 The Australian Act is modelled on Personal Property Securities legislation in force in New Zealand, the Canadian Provinces and the United States. Movement towards a Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) began in the United States in 1940. The UCC, Article 9 of which deals with secured transactions, was first enacted in Pennsylvania in 1953, other American states following suit over the course of the 1950s and 1960s. Of the Canadian provinces, Ontario was the first to enact Personal Property Securities legislation, drawing on the scheme in UCC Article 9, in 1967. The other provinces (apart from Quebec) adopted various versions of such legislation in the next decades. New Zealand enacted its PPSA in 1999. For the legislative history of the foreign Acts, see Malcolm, ‘The Uniform Commercial Code in the United States’ (1963) 12 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 226; McCracken et al, Everett and McCracken’s Banking and Financial Institutions Law, 8th ed, Lawbook Co, Sydney, 2013 (Everett and McCracken), p 490 [13.010]; Mike Gedye, ‘The Development of New Zealand’s Secured Transactions Jurisprudence’ (2011) 34(2) UNSWLJ 696. Over time these precedential statutes have developed a rich surrounding jurisprudence, which will undoubtedly provide an important source of guidance in the early years of the Australian regime. Indeed, this has already proven to be the case: see Re Maiden Civil (P & E) Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 852. In that case, Brereton J interpreted s 19(5) of the Australian Act by reference to analogous provisions in the PPSAs of New Zealand and British Columbia as interpreted in the seminal cases of Re Giffen [1998] 1 SCR 91; (1998) 155 DLR (4th) 332, Graham v Portacom New Zealand Ltd [2004] 2 NZLR 528 and Waller v New Zealand Bloodstock Ltd [2006] 3 NZLR 629. His Honour commented (at [32]):

The Commonwealth Parliament, in enacting legislation that was modelled on the New Zealand and Canadian legislation, should be taken to have intended the same approach [to s 19(5)], which was by then well-established in Canada and New Zealand, to apply.

It is well established that Acts in pari materia, including from different jurisdictions, may be referred to when construing a piece of legislation: see, for example, Strachan v Brown and Visser (2000) 9 Tas R 291; [2000] TASSC 142 at [20]–[21]; PT Ltd Maradona Pty Ltd (No 2) (1992) 27 NSWLR 241 at 252; Collection Point Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2012) 129 ALD 263; [2012] FCA 720 at [21], affd (2013) 212 FCR 184, [2013] FCAFC 67; ZL v R (2010) 208 A Crim R 325 at 329; see generally Pearce and Robert Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia, 7th ed, LexisNexis Butterworths, Sydney, 2011, pp 101–3 [3.36]–[3.38]. The novelty, strangeness and pedigree of the PPSA will likely entail a much wider application of this principle, and a far greater engagement with North American authority, than in the past. The decision in Maiden Civil also heralds a broader application of the principle that, where an Act is passed in Australia that is in similar terms to another Act, then the legislature is presumed to know the judicial interpretation placed on the Act by other courts and to have intended that it should be followed in Australia. Previously, this principle had been applied with confidence only in relation to Acts passed in other Australian states or in England: Pearce and Geddes, above, p 114 [3.50]; National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd v Godrich (1909) 10 CLR 1 at 13–14 (Griffith CJ) (decision of New York State Court); cf Warnecke v the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States [1906] VLR 482 at 487–8. As the decision in Maiden Civil demonstrates, foreign precedent will be of particular use in analysing the overall purpose and foundational concepts of the PPSA. Yet the [page 147] foreign Acts and surrounding case law may also prove useful in interpreting the finer details, as where a particular term is not defined in the Australian Act but is defined in another PPSA: see FCT v Henderson (1943) 68 CLR 29 at 44 (Latham CJ); Commissioner of Taxation v ICI Australia Ltd (1971–

1972) 127 CLR 529 at 581 (Gibbs J); Dampier Salt (Operations) Pty Ltd v Collector of Customs (1995) 133 ALR 502 at 509–10; affd (1996) 67 FCR 108; cf M Collins & Son Pty Ltd v Bankstown Municipal Council (1958) 3 LGRA 216. For example, in construing the word ‘default’, not defined in the Australian Act, one might have regard to the definition of that term in s 2(1) (n) of the Saskatchewan Act. Similarly, in the event an Australian provision is open to a number of possible constructions, it may be preferable to select that which best accords either with the wording of an analogous provision in another PPSA, or judicial interpretations of the same. So, although on its face s 21(2)(b) of the Australian Act allows secured parties to perfect a security interest in ‘any collateral’ by taking possession of it, this may be read down to mean ‘any collateral capable of being possessed’ in accordance with foreign case law: see below 5.42. In Danziger v The Hydro-Electric Commission [1961] Tas SR 20, Crisp J commented (at 24): One should not be astute to seek differences between statutes, even though of different jurisdictions, in pari materia. Though a breach of the draftsman’s golden rule it is not a necessary implication that a departure in drafting indicates a different intention from the precedent, and in this case I think, despite the formal differences, the Tasmanian provision is intended concisely, though with dangerous brevity, to achieve the same result as the Imperial subsection and it should be construed accordingly.

Of course, foreign case law does not bind Australian courts. Nor should judicial interpretations in other jurisdictions be adopted unthinkingly. In Marshall v Director General, Dept of Transport (2001) 205 CLR 603, McHugh J noted that the wording of Land Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (UK) s 63 was identical to that of Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (Qld) s 20(1) (b). Despite this, his Honour went on to say (at 632–3): But that does not mean that the courts of Queensland, when construing the legislation of that State, should slavishly follow judicial decisions of the courts of another jurisdiction in respect of similar or even identical legislation. The duty of courts, when construing legislation, is to give effect to the purpose of the legislation. The primary guide to understanding the purpose is the natural and ordinary meaning of the words of the legislation. Judicial decisions on similar or identical legislation are guides to, but cannot control, the meaning of legislation in the court’s jurisdiction.

See also Coco v R (1994) 179 CLR 427 at 456 (Toohey J). A measure of caution is particularly necessary given the differences between the Australian PPSA and its predecessors, as well as among its predecessors: see Waller v

New Zealand Bloodstock [2006] 3 NZLR 629 at [16]. Generally speaking, the Australian Act bears closest resemblance to the New Zealand and Canadian Acts, particularly those of Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario. It tends to differ more from UCC Article 9. However, this is not always the case: sometimes the Australian Act draws more from the UCC and diverges from the New Zealand and Canadian Acts. Sometimes it is entirely unique. It is accordingly difficult to make any meaningful generalisation regarding the utility of foreign precedent from some jurisdictions relative to that from others. Different wording between Acts may reflect specific policy choices, or simply result from particular drafting conventions, or attempts at ‘dangerous brevity’. In some cases the distinction is clear. For example, the Australian provisions relating to the vesting of unperfected security interests on insolvency, and those relating to perfection by control, diverge quite strikingly and deliberately from their Canadian and New Zealander counterparts. In other cases, it is less clear whether Parliament intended to make substantive or merely stylistic changes to the scheme as enacted elsewhere. One instance is s 24(6) of the Australian Act, which allows for the ‘possession’ of certificated investment [page 148] instruments. On a literal reading, this amenity is available only if the instruments are in registered form. By contrast, an analogous provision in many Canadian Acts applies to instruments in registered and bearer form: see Sask PPSA s 24(3); BC PPSA s 24(3); Alb PPSA s 24(3); Man PPSA s 24(3); Ont PPSA s 22(2); see Duggan and Brown, above at 5.2, pp 102–3, [5.19]– [5.20]. Did Parliament intend a narrower scope for s 24(6), or should the provision be taken to extend to instruments in bearer form as well? In Ory and Ory v Betamore Pty Ltd (1990) 54 SASR 331 at 345, Cox J made the following remarks while grappling with the interpretation of one provision that was identical in almost every respect to a corresponding provision in a prior statute: [T]he draftsman clearly had the earlier Act in front of him when he drafted the [later Act]. Why did he vary the wording of the corresponding par (a) …? Was he simply fiddling with the words

without intending to change their meaning …? Or did he want to narrow the scope of par (a) by using a different formula? I have found this question perplexing.

No doubt Australian judges, lawyers and academics will find similar questions similarly perplexing when construing the PPSA. As Marshall emphasises, a critical approach to foreign precedent is required not only where the wording of a provision differs between Acts, but also where the wording is identical. Opinions may differ between courts as to the natural and ordinary meaning of words. A differing statutory context or commercial environment may lead to differing interpretations. The fact that Australian courts have often take a different approach to the common law and, especially, equity, than their Canadian and New Zealander counterparts may also be a reason for caution — particularly when analysing the effect of the Act on the general law; see Loxton, ‘New Bottle for Old Wine? The Characterisation of PPSA Security Interests’ (2012) 23 JBFLP 163 at 164. This said, it remains vitally important for Australian practitioners to engage with the PPSA’s predecessors and associated case law. The PPSA is not a statute that can be readily understood after a bare reading. In light of the depth of jurisprudence surrounding the foreign Acts, it would be extremely facile to construe the PPSA as if it were unique to Australia and the problem of its construction were of merely parochial concern (paraphrasing Nettle JA in RJE v Department of Justice (2008) 192 A Crim R 156 at 171).

Other interpretive aids 5.5 It is useful to briefly consider here some domestic aids to interpretation. One distinctive feature of the Act is its use of statutory guides. There is a guide to the overall Act, guides to each Chapter, and guides to each Part of each Chapter: 49 in all. While these guides form part of the Act and should not be ignored in the process of construction, their utility in that process is limited: H v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2010) 188 FCR 393 at [88]. They will be a helpful introduction to the provisions of the PPSA for the uninitiated and may aid in resolving ambiguities. That said, it is unlikely that any of the guides will be useful in resolving complex issues of interpretation. Guides can be misleading in their simplicity, and certain guides in the PPSA can be criticised as obscuring rather than clarifying the operative provisions: cf Legal Services Board (Vic) v Gillespie-Jones [2012] VSCA 68 at [37]. See Herzfeld, Prince and Tully, Interpretation and the Use

of Legal Sources, 1st ed, Thomson Reuters, 2013, pp 181–2 [25.1.1560]; and In the matter of Maiden Civil (P & E) Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 852 at [61] for an example of the use of a PPSA statutory guide in the construction of the Act. Consistent with other modern statutes, the PPSA also contains a variety of ‘navigational’ and ‘explanatory’ notes, which form part of the Act and may be taken into account in its construction: Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 13; and see Herzfeld, Prince and Tully, above, pp 187–8 [25.1.1600]. The effect of a given statutory note depends on [page 149] its particular language and context: One.Tel Ltd (in liq) v Rich (2005) 190 FLR 443 at 459–60 per Bergin J. Material that does not form part of the PPSA, including explanatory memoranda, second reading speeches, and Law Reform Commission reports, may be used to confirm the meaning of a given provision, or to determine its meaning in the face of ambiguity, obscurity, absurdity or unreasonableness: Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) ss 15AB(1), (2); cf CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384. However, the text of the Act remains controlling and such materials may not be used to ascertain the subjective intention of the drafter, which is irrelevant: see South Australia v Commonwealth (1942) 65 CLR 373; Harrison v Melhem (2008) 72 NSWLR 380; Herzfeld, Prince and Tully, above, pp 299–300 [25.1.2660]. It is unlikely that Australian courts will make extensive use of the second reading speeches associated with the various Personal Property Securities Bills, although these do confirm that the Act was intended to simplify the law’s treatment of security interests in personal property without codifying it, and to focus the law ‘on the real or economic effect of the transaction’: Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 24 June 2009, 6960 (Robert McClelland, Attorney-General). The majority of parliamentary discussion focused on the establishment of a single national register and the doing away with the miscellany of Acts that previously governed security interests in personal property.

Of greater use are the explanatory memoranda accompanying each Bill, especially those associated with the Personal Property Securities Bill 2009 (Cth) and the Personal Property Securities (Corporations and Other Amendments) Bill 2010 (Cth). These may give some indication of the gist of undefined terms, such as ‘transaction’, or of the rationale underlying the introduction of new concepts, such as ‘control’. In other cases, a memorandum may assume that the Act will operate in a particular way notwithstanding the express terms do not necessarily lead one to that conclusion: see, for example, 5.72. The New South Wales Law Reform Commission (NSWLRC) and the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) jointly prepared a report regarding the proposed PPSA over a decade before the reforms were carried into effect: Personal Property Securities, ALRC Report No 64 (1993). The Law Reform Commissions of Queensland and Victoria also prepared a joint discussion paper, believing themselves to have different ‘policy objectives’ to the ALRC: Personal Property Security Law: A Blueprint for Reform, QLRC Discussion Paper No 39 and VLRC Discussion Paper No 28 (1992). Both papers set out at length the mischief the PPSA is designed to address. However, perhaps unsurprisingly, the recommendations made in the second paper are radically different to those eventually acted upon by the drafters of the PPSA. The PPSA also diverges from a number of recommendations made by the ALRC and NSWLRC. The utility of these papers as interpretive aids diminishes accordingly, although they provide important background material.

II Application of the PPSA 5.6 For the PPSA to apply to a given transaction, the transaction must involve the granting of a security interest in personal property, have the requisite connection with Australia, and not fall within any of the excluded transactions listed in ss 8 and 12. Special provisions deal with security interests in personal property that were created prior to the PPSA, including those that were registered on the appropriate pre-PPSA register. The definition of a security interest is considered in Part C (Security interests under the PPSA). What follows is a brief discussion of the other factors to be considered when determining whether and how the PPSA applies to a

particular transaction. [page 150]

Connection with Australia 5.7 For the PPSA to apply to a transaction, it must have a sufficient connection with Australia. This is not to say that Australian law governs the transaction; this discussion should not be confused with the Act’s choice of law provisions (see Pt 7.2), which are outside the scope of this chapter. A relevant connection with Australia may arise in a number of ways depending on the nature of the collateral: see 5.9. The Act applies to security interests: in goods or financial property, if the property is located in Australia (s 6(1)(a)); in intermediated securities, if the intermediary is located in Australia (s 6(1A)(a)); in accounts, if the account is payable in Australia (s 6(2)(b)); being the interest of a transferor of an account or chattel paper, if the account or chattel paper is payable in Australia (s 6(2)(c)(ii)). The Act will also apply to security interests in intangible property, or any of the kinds of property above, where the grantor of the interest is an Australian entity: ss 6(1)(b), (1A)(b), (2)(a), (c)(i). Lastly, the Act applies to security interests in ADI accounts, and security interests provided for by Australian law, by virtue of their identity as such: s 6(2)(d), (e); see s 10 (‘ADI account’).

Transitional provisions 5.8 The PPSA seeks to preserve the priority of secured interests arising from agreements entered into prior to 30 January 2012, the ‘registration commencement time’. It does so by reference to the ‘transitional security agreement’ and the ‘transitional security interest’, both defined terms. A transitional security agreement is an agreement that was in force immediately

before 30 January 2012, and which has continued to be in force since that date: s 307; see also s 10 (‘security agreement’). A transitional security interest is one that is provided for by a transitional security agreement and otherwise meets the definitions in ss 12(1) and (3) of a PPSA security interest: s 308; see also s 310 (time at which Act begins to apply, and in relation to which matters it applies). It is immaterial whether the security interest came into existence after 30 January 2012, as long as the security agreement from which it derives was in force beforehand: s 321. A special regime applies to transitional security interests. Section 321 provides that all such interests are ‘taken to attach’ to the collateral immediately before 30 January 2012 for the purposes of the default priority rules (s 55, see 5.70 (Default priority rules)) and the definition of ‘perfection’ (s 21, see 5.41 (Perfection)): s 306. A transitional security interest is enforceable against third parties notwithstanding the writing requirements under s 20 of the Act have not been complied with, provided the interest was so enforceable under pre-PPSA law: s 311. Further, the Ch 4 enforcement provisions do not apply to transitional security interests, so that such secured parties must continue to rely on contractual enforcement provisions and any other remedies available outside the PPSA: s 314. The Act deems all transitional security interests to be perfected from the time immediately before 30 January 2012. Again, this is so whether or not the transitional security interest arose before, at or after this date: s 322(1). This automatic perfection status enures for the benefit of secured parties for all purposes under the Act, but is of limited duration. Specifically, it will come to an end at the earliest of the following times (see s 322(2)): when the security interest is perfected by registration under Div 6 (migration of personal property security interests); when the security interest is perfected by preparatory registration under Div 7; [page 151] when the security interest is otherwise perfected by registration, or is

perfected by possession or control; when the security interest is otherwise perfected by force of the Act, provided perfection is not by force of the temporary perfection provisions or s 322 itself; or the end of the month that is 24 months after 30 January 2012. Loosely speaking then, the Act provides a 24-month grace period for holders of transitional interests to perfect their interests by other means. If a secured party fails to do so, then its interest will still be ‘taken to [have] attach[ed]’ immediately before 30 January 2012: see above. However, the interest will be vulnerable in the context of priority disputes, insolvency and the operation of the taking free rules; see Part E (Priority rules), 5.102 (Taking free rules) and 5.111 (Insolvency). A subset of transitional security interests is accorded even greater protection. This is the ‘migrated security interest’, being a transitional security interest for which there was a registration in a ‘transitional register’ that was effective and ‘duly authorised by the law under which the register was maintained’: s 332. The PPS Registrar ‘migrated’ these interests to the PPS register, at which time they became perfected by registration under the PPSA: see ss 322(2)(a), 333. By virtue of s 322(1), such interests remain continuously perfected from immediately before 30 January 2012 onwards. Unlike other transitional security interests, no ‘sunset date’ applies to the perfection of migrated security interests. However, such interests may yet cease to be perfected under the PPSA, in circumstances where the original registration in the transitional register was temporally limited, or the registration becomes ineffective under Pt 5.4; see s 337 and 5.53; Duggan and Brown, above, p 340 [15.19].

Property within the PPSA 5.9 The word ‘property’ is undefined in the PPSA. Its meaning be ascertained in light of the particular context in which it appears, and the purpose of the Act as a whole: see Kirby (Inspector of Taxes) v Thorn EMI plc [1988] WLR 445 at 450 per Nicholls LJ; Yanner v Eaton (1999) 201 CLR 351 at 366–7. Canadian authority suggests that ‘property’ should be construed broadly in the context of the PPSA, given it seeks to facilitate the

raising of funds through secured transactions. In Re Gauntlet Energy Corp (2003) 45 CBR (4th) 46; 5 PPSAC (3d) 236, Kent J of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench held that confidential information was a kind of personal property within the PPSA, notwithstanding it was not considered property in other contexts. In Saulnier (Receiver of) v Saulnier (2008) 298 DLR (4th) 193, the Supreme Court of Canada held that a statutory fishing licence fell within the concept of ‘property’ under the Nova Scotia PPSA and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act RSC 1985 c B-3. Binnie J (with whom the other members of the court agreed) made the following comments (at [16]– [19], and [43]–[51]): The questions before the Court essentially raise a dispute about statutory interpretation. We are not concerned with the concept of ‘property’ in the abstract. The notion of ‘property’ is, in any event, a term of some elasticity that takes its meaning from the context. The task is to interpret the definitions in the BIA and PPSA in a purposeful way having regard to ‘their entire context, in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament’ (R. Sullivan, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th ed. 2002), at p. 1). Because a fishing licence may not qualify as ‘property’ for the general purposes of the common law does not mean that it is also excluded from the reach of the statutes. For particular purposes Parliament can and does create its own lexicon … The PPSA … is designed to facilitate the creation of a security interest to enable holders of personal property to use it as collateral, and to enable lenders to predict accurately the priority of their claims against the assets in question �