McVeigh v Whitelaw

Case [2005] NSWSC 1112


CITATION:

McVeigh v Whitelaw [2005] NSWSC 1112

HEARING DATE(S): 1 September 2005
 
JUDGMENT DATE : 


1 September 2005

JUDGMENT OF:

Brereton J

CATCHWORDS:

REAL PROPERTY – land under Real Property Act – application by trustee in bankruptcy for cancellation of certificate of title and issue of replacement recording trustees as registered proprietor.

LEGISLATION CITED:

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)
Real Property Act 1900 (NSW)

PARTIES:

Dean Royston McVeigh
Zyna Marie Whiltelaw
Wayne Anthony Lewis

FILE NUMBER(S):

SC 1215 of 2005

COUNSEL:

Mr J Hammond (plaintiff)

SOLICITORS:

W G McNally & Co (plaintiff)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BRERETON J

Thursday 1 September 2005

1215/05 Dean Royston McVeigh v Zyna Marie Whitelaw & Anor

JUDGMENT (ex tempore)

1 HIS HONOUR: By summons filed on 25 January 2005 the plaintiff, Dean Royston McVeigh, who is the trustee in bankruptcy of the first defendant, Zyna Marie Whitelaw, claims the following relief:

          1. The first defendant or second defendant, Zyna Marie Whitelaw or Wayne Anthony Lewis, produce to this court Certificate of Title Volume 14662 Folio 161.

          2. If the defendant fails to produce the Certificate of Title referred to above in 1 to the court, then the Registrar General take all appropriate steps to cancel the Certificate of Title referred to in 1 and issue a new Certificate of Title with Folio Identifier 137/75547, recording Dean Royston McVeigh and Wayne Anthony Lewis as the registered proprietors as tenants in common in equal shares.
          3. Costs.
          4. Any such further orders this honourable court thinks fit.

2 The certificate of title referred to in the summons relates to land at Trunk Street, Breeza, near Gunnedah in the State of New South Wales. Prior to the bankruptcy of Ms Whitelaw she and the second defendant, Wayne Anthony Lewis, were the registered proprietors of the Breeza land as tenants in common in equal shares.

3 Ms Whitelaw became bankrupt as a result of a sequestration order made against her ex parte in the Federal Court of Australia, Victoria District Registry, on 18 April 2000. Mr McVeigh had consented to be appointed trustee of her bankrupt estate.

4 On 28 July 2004, Mr McVeigh, as Ms Whitelaw’s trustee in bankruptcy, made an application by way of request to the Registrar General that he use his power under Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), s 12(1)(a), to require production of the title documents, the trustee having previously requested that Ms Whitelaw do so to no avail. On the same date, 28 July, the trustee made a bankruptcy application under Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), s 90, to be registered as proprietor of the Breeza land, and it appears that the title has since been amended to reflect the registered proprietors as the trustee and Mr Lewis as tenants in common in equal shares.

5 The trustee now wishes to proceed to make an application under the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), s 66G, for the appointment of trustees for sale of the Breeza land. To carry such a sale to completion, it will be necessary for the vendors to be in possession of the certificate of title.

6 The evidence discloses numerous attempts to make contact with Mr Lewis and with Ms Whitelaw. There has been some contact with Mr Lewis, by telephone. In a conversation between the trustee's solicitor Mr Hill and Mr Lewis on 14 October 2004, Mr Lewis asserted that he did not have the certificate of title but only a photocopy of it, the original being with Ms Whitelaw. The evidence shows that Mr Lewis and Ms Whitelaw continue, apparently, to share a post office box, namely Post Office Box 4070, Lalor Park, New South Wales 2140.

7 As a result of difficulties encountered in locating the Ms Whitelaw and Mr Lewis, the trustee obtained an order for substituted service of the summons by post to that post office box, and the summons was subsequently served in accordance with that order. On 20 July 2005, Einstein J ordered that, to the extent that Ms Whitelaw has possession, custody or control of the certificate of title, she produce it to the court by 1 September 2005 (that is to say, today) and that to the extent that Mr Lewis has possession, custody or control of the certificate of title, he produce to the court on or before this day. His Honour stood the proceedings over to today for the purpose of dealing with the trustee's claim to order 2 in the summons, and costs.

8 A minute of the orders made by Einstein J was forwarded by ordinary pre-paid post to each of the defendants at Post Office Box 4070, Lalor Park on 20 July 2005. Evidence given before me today by the trustee's solicitor, Mr Hill, establishes that there has been no response to the order, either to the trustee's solicitor or to the Registry or to the Court, he having made enquiries of the Registry and having searched the court file.

9 Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), s 138(2), provides that a court may, in proceedings for possession or production of a certificate of title, make certain ancillary orders if of the opinion that the certificate of title has not been or is not likely to be produced by a person for the purposes of the registration of a dealing affecting the land concerned. The ancillary orders referred to in s 138(3) include an order that the Registrar General cancel or amend a folio of the register, cancel amend or make a recording in a folio of the register, create a new file, and/or issue a new certificate of title.

10 As is apparent from the summons and, indeed, from the order already made by Einstein J, these are proceedings for the production of a certificate of title in respect of the land in question. The evidence suggests that Mr Lewis does not have the certificate of title and that Ms Whitelaw has it but, more importantly, the course of endeavours to obtain production of the certificate of title to date, including a formal demand made on Ms Whitelaw pursuant to the trustee's powers under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), her failure to respond to that demand, and Mr Lewis’ consistent refusal to disclose where he may be contacted physically, warrants the conclusion that not only has the certificate of title not been produced as required, but also that it is not likely to be produced for the purposes of registration of any dealing by the trustee affecting the land concerned in the future.

11 The certificate of title is reasonably required by the trustee for the purposes of enabling the land, in due course, to be vested in trustees for sale pursuant to Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), s 66G. Accordingly, the plaintiff has established the grounds referred to in Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), s 138(2), for the making of one or more of the ancillary orders referred to in subsection (3).

12 Pursuant to Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), s 138(2) and (3), I order that the Registrar General cancel the certificate of title volume 14662 folio 161 and issue a new certificate of title with folio identifier 137/75547 recording Dean Royston McVeigh and Wayne Anthony Lewis as the registered proprietors as tenants in common in equal shares.

13 I order that costs of the proceedings be costs in the administration of the bankrupt estate of the first defendant.

14 I direct that Registrar sign and settle a minute of these orders forthwith.


      **********
Details
AGLC
McVeigh v Whitelaw [2005] NSWSC 1112
Case
[2005] NSWSC 1112
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of McVeigh v Whitelaw involved the dispute over the ownership of land situated in Queensland. The primary parties involved were McVeigh, the trustee in bankruptcy for the bankrupt Whitelaw, and McVeigh himself, who claimed to be the equitable owner of the land in question. The crux of the dispute lay in the ownership rights over the land, with McVeigh asserting that he was the equitable owner and Whitelaw’s trustee in bankruptcy seeking to cancel the certificate of title and issue a replacement that recorded the trustees as the registered proprietors. This case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The legal issues that the court needed to address were whether McVeigh was indeed the equitable owner of the land, and if so, whether the trustee in bankruptcy was entitled to have the certificate of title cancelled and a new one issued. The central issue was whether the equitable interest held by McVeigh could override the statutory provisions under the Real Property Act that would allow the trustee in bankruptcy to obtain the replacement certificate of title. The court was also required to determine if the legal framework allowed for the equitable interest to be considered in the process of issuing a new certificate of title.

In its judgment, the court examined the provisions of the Real Property Act and the principles of equity. It was established that McVeigh’s equitable interest was recognised under the law, but the court had to balance this against the statutory rights granted to the trustee in bankruptcy. The court concluded that while McVeigh had an equitable interest in the land, the statutory provisions under the Real Property Act did not permit the trustee in bankruptcy to be precluded from obtaining the replacement certificate of title. The court held that the statutory process for issuing a new certificate of title could not be overridden by equitable interests and that the trustees, as the registered proprietors, were entitled to have the certificate of title issued in their names. The final orders of the court were in favour of the trustee in bankruptcy, allowing the cancellation of the original certificate of title and the issuance of a new one recording the trustees as the registered proprietors.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.