Assessment Task 1 (30% of the final mark)
This Week
30 Points Possible
In Progress
NEXT UP: Submit assignment
Unlimited Attempts Allowed
This Week
Attempt 1 Add comment
Details
Assessment task Assessment 1 – ASSIGNMENT
Purpose
To give students the opportunity to produce a well-written piece of formal analysis on a topic in
land law. Graduate capabilities GC1,3,7-11 are covered by this assessment.
Length and/or format 1300 words (no leeway) (excluding bibliography and footnotes)
Weighting 30% (of the total marks for the semester)
Due date – This Month
Marking criteria Please ensure you read the marking rubric and understand the marking criteria.
Footnotes Are required. They will not form part of the word limit. Use AGLC.
IMPORTANT:
Students are not permitted to use artificial intelligence (AI) to complete this task. Unauthorised
use of AI may result in potential academic integrity concerns leading to a formal complaint.
Learning outcomes
assessed
Learning Outcomes 1 and 3 (GC1, GC3, GC7, GC8, G99, GC10, GC11)
- Describe and critically evaluate the law relating to land law
- Compare and contrast Australian land law with that in certain other jurisdictions and evaluate
its effectiveness
How to submit Online via Turnitin in Canvas on or before the due date
Return of assignment Online via Turnitin in Canvas three weeks after submission
Assessment
resources:
Library Guide_Law (https://libguides.acu.edu.au/law) - Guide for structuring your assignment:
Guide for structuring the assignment.docx - Bahr v Nicolay analysis: Additional material_Week 3_Tutorial-1.pptx
(https://canvas.acu.edu.au/courses/22482/files/3078554?wrap=1)
Examples of
JUDICIAL opinion:
Read examples of legal reasoning/opinion writing in the following cases
MASON CJ AND DAWSON J in Bahr v Nicolay (1988) 164 CLR 604 or
ORMISTON, JA in Russo v Bendigo Bank Ltd [1999] 3 VR 376
Assessment Task 1 (30% of the final mark)
https://canvas.acu.edu.au/courses/22482/assignments/75354?module_item_id=1464022 1/6
Task:
You are a member of a judicial appeal panel deciding an appeal case on land law. As part of a
panel of judges, your opinion will contribute to the final decision, so it should be clear,
authoritative, and grounded in legal analysis. Based on the facts provided, you are required to
write a legal opinion on the matter, applying relevant legal principles from land law covered in
weeks 1 – 4.
Your opinion should be well-reasoned, demonstrate a clear understanding of the law, and provide
a definitive legal conclusion.
Following is the lower court judgment of Roneous J. This judgment was given for Liam Payne. Presume that the facts as
stated are true and correct.
Sally Murray appeals the finding on the basis that Roneous J erred in finding that she was not entitled to remain
registered owner because Greta Green had a better title than her.
Greta Green appeals on the basis that Roneous J erred in finding that Liam Payne had a better title than her.
Liam Payne argues the judge at first instance was correct in her application of the law to the facts.
All parties say that the errors of the judge are evident on the face of the record, and they seek to have the Court of
Appeal make a judgement in their favour based on ‘well known principles of the common law’. Because these principles
are so obvious and clear, all parties agree, there is no need for any further significant arguments on their part.
Deliver your judgment on appeal on the correctness or otherwise of Roneous J’s decision and decide who among the three
have a better right to registration.
Murray v Green and Payne
Supreme Court
AT CAPITAL CITY COMMON LAW DIVISIONS ECI 2025 04298 Liam Payne Plaintiff v Sally Murray Defendant and
Greta Green Cross Claimant.
WHERE HELD: Capital City
DATES OF HEARING: This month
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 2026
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: Payne v Murray
Land Law – Priorities – Fraud – Where land title obtained by fraud – Where subsequent purchaser for value without notice –
Whether subsequent purchaser for value without notice of fraud obtains clear title – Where fraud committed by solicitor
placing land in own name – Indefeasibility of title – Effect of registration – Gibbs v Messer [1891] AC 248
Assessment Task 1 (30% of the final mark)
https://canvas.acu.edu.au/courses/22482/assignments/75354?module_item_id=1464022 2/6 - This unfortunate case involves, to the discredit of the legal profession, a scandalous departure from those professional
norms we hold dear as honourable practitioners of an honourable profession. The case also raises important issues
regarding the long vexed issue of indefeasibility of title and the effect of fraud on registration.
Facts - The Facts are these. Mrs Greta Green, desirous of an escape to sunnier climes, decided she would take the trip of a lifetime
and spend six weeks in the Caribbean, in the Bahamas, on the delightful Island of Grand Bahama. Unfortunately, while her
trip may have been marvellous, the aftermath was not. - Greta (if I may, with respect, call her that) had a long time faithful (or so she thought) legal retainer – a solicitor by the name
of Michael Mezza (‘Mezza’). Mezza had for many years honourably and professionally managed the legal affairs of Greta.
That faithful service came to an end, unfortunately, during Greta’s dream Caribbean sojourn. - Shortly after Greta had left for her trip, early in 2025, Mezza, for reasons unknown, and having access to the electronic
conveyancing system, PEXA, transferred Greta’s property, located at 52 King Street, Springbrook, into his own name. It was
one of several of his client’s properties that he effectively obtained by fraud at this time. - After placing the property in his own name, Mezza put the property up for sale on the open market at a price – significantly
below its value – of $1.4 million. It was placed at a price below its value presumably so he could get a quick sale. - On the 27 January, Mezza found a buyer in the person of Ms Sally Murray, the defendant in these proceedings (whom, with
respect, I shall refer to as Sally). Sally was delighted to have found such a wonderful property at such a low price. - There was a very short settlement period, and Sally, after having paid the full purchase price, was registered as the new
owner on 14 February 2025. - Now, alas! Mezza’s nefarious actions infect the life of another innocent person– because unbeknownst to Sally, Mezza
entered into a second contract for the sale of the property. Pretending to be Sally’s agent he entered into a contract of sale
“on her behalf” to Mr Liam Payne. Mr Payne (whom I shall, with respect, henceforward refer to as Liam) was also delighted
to find such a perfect property at such a perfect price. Desirous of taking possession of his prize as promptly as possible, he
paid the full purchase price of $1.5 million on 17 February. - Now, for whatever reason – we do not know why – someone ‘tipped off’ the police as to Mr Mezza’s shenanigans, and in
the course of their inquiries, the police having questioned senior persons at the Land Registry, the Deputy Registrar of
lands placed caveats on several properties having recently been dealt with by Mr Mezza – including the property at 52 King
Street, Springbrook now registered to Ms Sally Murray. - As a consequence of the caveat, Liam’s transfer could not be registered, and Sally remains the registered proprietor of the
property and Liam is more than a little disgruntled: So, as one might easily imagine, is Greta. Mr Mezza has disappeared
with more than $40 million of his client’s money – also presumably off to an island in the Caribbean. The police continue
their inquiries. - Leaving aside the police inquiries, which are of no matter to this Court, the question before us today relates to the
appropriate title of 52 King Street (I shall for brevities sake refer to it as ‘the property’.)
Arguments of the Parties - Sally says the property is rightfully hers as a result of her having purchased it, paid the price and becoming registered. Greta
says that the title should be transferred back to her, due to the fact that she was deprived of it by fraud. Liam says the
caveat should be lifted to allow him to become the rightful registered owner, as he too, an innocent purchaser for value,
has every right to be. - Who is correct?
As between Sally and Greta - It seems to me the law here is clear. The relevant section of the statute says, if I remember it correctly:
Notwithstanding the existence in any other person of any estate or interest … which but for this Act might be held to be
paramount or to have priority, the registered proprietor of land shall, except in case of fraud, hold such land subject to such
encumbrances as are recorded on the relevant folio of the Register but absolutely free from all other encumbrances
whatsoever…
Assessment Task 1 (30% of the final mark)
https://canvas.acu.edu.au/courses/22482/assignments/75354?module_item_id=1464022 3/6 - Now, I have added the emphasis in the previous paragraph to show the important point. In the case of Gibbs v Messer
[1891] AC 248 Lord Watson, who delivered the Report of the Board (consisting of The Lord Chancellor and Lords
Hobhouse, Herschell, Macnaughten, Morris and Shand) said (at 255):
The protection which the statute gives to persons transacting on the faith of the register is, by its terms, limited to those who
actually deal with and derive right from a proprietor whose name is upon the register. Those who deal, not with the registered
proprietor, but with a forger who uses his name, do not transact on the faith of the register; and they cannot by registration of a forged
deed acquire a valid title in their own person …. (emphasis added) - Now of course, in that case, the “registered proprietor’ was a fictitious person, but I cannot but see that the reason in Gibbs
v Messer applies also to our facts. Sally, unfortunately has dealt with a forger who uses the name of a person other than the
real proprietor – Greta. Since Mr Mezza’s title was obtained by fraud, it was no title at all. And since Mr Mezza had no title
– he had no title to transfer, and it was impossible for Sally to get from Mr Mezza something he did not have to give in the
first place. - If this were a contest simply between Sally and Greta, therefore, I would make an order that Sally’s name be taken off the
Register, and Greta’s name be returned to it. That is only fair, as well as being a manifestation of the intention of the statute
and follows the high precedent of the Privy Council.
As between Greta and Liam - However, the competition is not simply between Greta and Sally. Since I have found that Sally never could have, and never
did, have title, the question is who has better title between Greta and Liam? - This is a different situation. Sally did not obtain her title as a result of her fraud – she was after all, an innocent purchaser,
for value. But her title was, as we have seen, ‘tainted by fraud’. Liam was, as between Sally and himself “less tainted” if I may
so put it. Since he has paid full value, he may rely on that other section of the Act that says:
No folio of the Register under this Act shall be impeached or defeasible by reasons or on account of any informality or
irregularity in any application or instrument … and every folio of the Register shall be received in all courts as evidence of the
particulars recorded in it and all the recordings of those particulars in the Register, and shall be conclusive evidence that the
person named in the folio as the proprietor of… the land described. - Sally was listed as the proprietor. Liam had every reason to believe she was the proprietor. As we have seen from the case
of Gibbs v Messer above, although a person who purchases land from a fraudulent party cannot themselves get good title.
… the fact of their being registered will enable them to pass a valid right to third parties who purchase from them in good faith and
for onerous consideration… (emphasis added) - That is what has happened here. In addition, what Liam has obtained by his payment of the full purchase price is the
equitable estate to the land. As even every second year law student knows, where there is a battle between a legal interest
and an equitable interest, the equitable interest wins. - As that is the case, and as Greta has a mere legal estate by virtue of her registration, but Liam has an equitable estate by
virtue of his innocent purchase in full from a registered proprietor who was not involved in any fraud, I must apply the
equitable principle that “equity sees as done what ought to have been done”.
Orders - I therefore order (1) that the Deputy Registrar’s caveat be lifted, and (2) that Sally Murray’s name be removed from the
Registry as the fee simple owner of 52 King Street, Springbrook, and that Liam Payne be duly registered as the owner of
the fee simple of that property.
Certified judgement of Justice Emily R Roneous
Associate
Assessment Task 1 (30% of the final mark)
https://canvas.acu.edu.au/courses/22482/assignments/75354?module_item_id=1464022 4/6
The post Assessment Task 1 appeared first on Universal Assignment.
