ASSIGNMENT Assessment task-1 February 20, 2026 by adminQuest
Assessment Task 1 (30% of the final mark) This Year 30 Points Possible In Progress NEXT UP: Submit assignment Unlimited Attempts Allowed 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 Thursday 4 September 2025 at 5pm 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 DIVISION S ECI 2025 04298 Liam Payne Plaintiffv Sally Murray Defendant and Greta Green Cross Claimant. JUDGE: Roneous J WHERE HELD: Capital City DATES OF HEARING: This Week DATE OF JUDGMENT: This Semester 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 Week. 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
