Frazer v Walker

Last updated

Frazer v Walker
Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg
Court Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Full case nameAlan Frederick Frazer v Douglas Hamilton Walker and Others
Decided7 December 1966
Citation(s)
Transcript(s) PC judgment
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Denning, Lord Hodson, Lord Wilberforce, Sir Garfield Barwick
Keywords
Fraud, indefeasibility of title

Frazer v Walker [1967] 1 AC 569 [1] is a landmark New Zealand court case that went to the Privy Council on appeal. The case upheld the concept that an owner of interest in land which was originally obtained from the rightful owner through fraud, still obtains an indefeasible interest in that title if they were unaware of the fraud.

Contents

The case also provided a succinct definition of "indefeasibility of title" as it appears in common law and the Torrens title land registration system. Specifically, it is the "immunity from attack by adverse claim to the land or interest in respect of which he is registered, which a registered proprietor enjoys". [2]

Background

Mr Alan Frederick Frazer and his wife Flora Agnes Frazer, jointly were the registered owners of a dairy farm in New Zealand under the Land Transfer Act [1952]. In 1961 Mrs Frazer borrowed £3,000 ($121,214 in 2011 dollars) from Mr and Mrs Radomski using the jointly owned property as security for the loan without her husband's knowledge or consent.

For the mortgage to be legally valid for a jointly owned property, the mortgage contract needed both owners' signatures (and for them to be witnessed). Mrs Frazer forged her husband's signature (without his knowledge) and persuaded the solicitors' own law clerk to falsely witness the forged signature of Mr Frazer. Mrs Frazer then paid off the existing mortgage on the house, leaving a certain sum of money for herself.

To further complicate matters, Mrs Frazer made no repayments on the new mortgage, resulting in the Radomski's selling the farm in the following year for £5,000 at a mortgagee sale to Mr Walker, who was totally unaware of the defect in the title to the farm (as were the Radomskis).

On 29 November 1962, Mr Walker was duly registered as the new legal owner of the farm on the property title.

After the farm was sold however, Mr Frazer refused to recognise Mr Walker's claim to legal ownership to the farm, leaving Mr Walker having to file an action for possession of the farm with the courts.

Held

Mr Walker's claim was upheld by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The Frazers appealed his claim to ownership to the farm to the Privy Council, where the earlier decisions were upheld. The Privy Council ruled that while the legal interest in the land may have been originally obtained by fraud, because Mr Walker was unaware of any fraud at the time of purchase (a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, under section 183 of the Land Transfer Act), meant that he had indefeasible title to the farm.

In a wider sense, this case is important due to its affirmation of the immediate nature of indefeasible title under section 62 of the New Zealand Land Transfer Act 1952, following Boyd v Mayor of Wellington .

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Life estate</span>

In common law and statutory law, a life estate is the ownership of immovable property for the duration of a person's life. In legal terms, it is an estate in real property that ends at death, when the property rights may revert to the original owner or to another person. The owner of a life estate is called a "life tenant". The person who will take over the rights upon death is said to have a "remainder" interest and is known as a "remainderman".

Landmark court decisions, in present-day common law legal systems, establish precedents that determine a significant new legal principle or concept, or otherwise substantially affect the interpretation of existing law. "Leading case" is commonly used in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth jurisdictions instead of "landmark case", as used in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Torrens title</span> Land registration and land transfer system

Torrens title is a land registration and land transfer system, in which a state creates and maintains a register of land holdings, which serves as the conclusive evidence of title of the person recorded on the register as the proprietor (owner), and of all other interests recorded on the register.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constructive trust</span> Type of legal remedy

In trust law, a constructive trust is an equitable remedy imposed by a court to benefit a party that has been wrongfully deprived of its rights due to either a person obtaining or holding a legal property right which they should not possess due to unjust enrichment or interference, or due to a breach of fiduciary duty, which is intercausative with unjust enrichment and/or property interference. It is a type of implied trust.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tracing (law)</span>

Tracing is a legal process, not a remedy, by which a claimant demonstrates what has happened to his/her property, identifies its proceeds and those persons who have handled or received them, and asks the court to award a proprietary remedy in respect of the property, or an asset substituted for the original property or its proceeds. Tracing allows transmission of legal claims from the original assets to either the proceeds of sale of the assets or new substituted assets.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal title</span> Concept in common law of indigenous land rights persisting after colonization

Aboriginal title is a common law doctrine that the land rights of indigenous peoples to customary tenure persist after the assumption of sovereignty to that land by another colonising state. The requirements of proof for the recognition of aboriginal title, the content of aboriginal title, the methods of extinguishing aboriginal title, and the availability of compensation in the case of extinguishment vary significantly by jurisdiction. Nearly all jurisdictions are in agreement that aboriginal title is inalienable, and that it may be held either individually or collectively.

<i>Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset</i>

Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset[1990] UKHL 14 is an English land law, trusts law and matrimonial law case. It specifically deals with the translation into money of physical contributions from a cohabitee or spouse, under which its principles have been largely superseded.

<i>Mortgage Corp v Shaire</i>

Mortgage Corporation v Shaire [2001] Ch 743 is a widely reported English land law case relating to the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. Such a status specifically flowed from an instance of non est factum mortgage fraud where the mortgage lender and the defrauded co-owner wished to accelerate and delay sale respectively. The case is relevant to matrimonial law in that the respective equitable shares in the home awarded to Mrs Shaire and Mr Fox in 1987 matrimonial proceedings were never defined and it fell to the court to define these.

Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd[2008] UKHL 55 is a House of Lords case in English land law and relates to proprietary estoppel in the multi-property developer context. The court of final appeal awarded the project manager £150,000 on a quantum meruit basis for unjust enrichment because Yeoman's Row had received the benefit of his services without paying for that. The court refused to find or acknowledge a binding contract, prior arrangement with a third party or promise, overturning a £2m award on the basis of a possible lien arising from a promise over the property. The court found a non-binding agreement in principle, entirely subject to the owner's final say to take into account for example their view of the market; this was the basis on the facts on which the parties were proceeding.

<i>Hussey v Palmer</i>

Hussey v Palmer [1972] EWCA Civ 1 is an English trusts law case of the Court of Appeal. It concerned the equitable remedy of constructive trusts. It invokes the equitable maxim, "equity regards the substance and not the form."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English land law</span> Law of real property in England and Wales

English land law is the law of real property in England and Wales. Because of its heavy historical and social significance, land is usually seen as the most important part of English property law. Ownership of land has its roots in the feudal system established by William the Conqueror after 1066, but is now mostly registered and sold on the real estate market. The modern law's sources derive from the old courts of common law and equity, and legislation such as the Law of Property Act 1925, the Settled Land Act 1925, the Land Charges Act 1972, the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 and the Land Registration Act 2002. At its core, English land law involves the acquisition, content and priority of rights and obligations among people with interests in land. Having a property right in land, as opposed to a contractual or some other personal right, matters because it creates priority over other people's claims, particularly if the land is sold on, the possessor goes insolvent, or when claiming various remedies, like specific performance, in court.

Bristol & West Building Society v Henning [1985] EWCA Civ 6 is an English land law case that holds a person can consent to give up the right to an overriding interest in land, that will bind third parties, such as banks, that purchase a property. Although dealing with unregistered land, it is equally applicable in the case of registered land and now falls under the Land Registration Act 2002.

<i>Breskvar v Wall</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Breskvar v Wall, was an Australian court case, decided in the High Court on 13 December 1971. The case was an influential decision in property law, specifically the effect of obtaining title by registration under the Torrens title system, the application of the fraud exception to the principle of indefeasibility and whether Frazer v Walker  should be followed in Australia. The High Court followed Frazer v Walker in upholding that a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the fraud obtained an effective title even though the person they purchased from was registered by fraud against the original owner.

<i>Boyd v Mayor of Wellington</i> Case law in New Zealand on the concept of indefeasibility of title

Boyd v. Mayor of Wellington [1924] NZLR 1174 is a leading case law in New Zealand on the concept of indefeasibility of title.

<i>Efstratiou v Glantschnig</i>

Efstratiou v Glantschnig (1972) is an often cited New Zealand case to the limits of indefeasibility of title to land ownership, where in this case, the purchaser of the land was aware of the title fraud at the time of the purchase of the property.

Link Lending Ltd v Bustard [2010] EWCA Civ 424 is an English land law case, concerning actual occupation in registered land and the vulnerable, in this case a defrauded person suffering from a mental syndrome who would have had little concept of what was occurring.

Midland Bank plc v Cooke [1995] is an English land law case, concerning constructive trusts; and at first instance proven undue influence in law as to a secured business loan and later refinance.

<i>Fairclough v Swan Brewery Co Ltd</i>

Fairclough v Swan Brewery Co Ltd, is a land law case, in which the Privy Council held that restrictions on the right to redeem a mortgage are void. The equity of redemption means that borrowers are able to sell or obtain new mortgage finance promptly and without impinging on other dependent transactions.

<i>Goss v Chilcott</i>

Goss v Chilcott[1996] UKPC 17 is a decision of the Privy Council on appeal from New Zealand relating to the law of restitution, and in particular the requirements of total failure of consideration in relation to loans where some repayments had been made, and the defence of change of position.

<i>CIBC Mortgages plc v Pitt</i>

CIBC Mortgages plc v Pitt[1993] UKHL 7 is a decision of the House of Lords relating to undue influence. The decision confirmed that a person did not need to suffer "manifest disadvantage" under a transaction in order to challenge it for actual undue influence.

References

  1. Frazer v Walker [1966] UKPC 27 , [1967] 1 AC 569, Privy Council (on appeal from New Zealand). LawCite.
  2. Frazer v Walker [1967] 1 AC 569, 580.