land - IP claim

Question 1

what are the elements for a AP claim and from what case

Answer 1

DOLLARS and sense
1. must not b inconsistnet w oobjectivs of the torrens system
2. must invlove unconscionable conduct on part of currnet RO
3. must be a recognised cause of action

Question 2

explain more on the third step of an IP claim that it must be a recognised cause of action

Answer 2

in frazer and walker it means any legal claim found in statute common law or equity, this allows the other party to order for SP for breach of con, trust or prop estop

Question 3

IP claim cases

Answer 3

• potts
• tuscany
• smith
• prangley

Question 4

potts

Answer 4

• p sold land to a on the condtion that a would grant a an easennet for water rights (equitable easement) there was BOC to provide the easement
• uphled the IP claim, A had taken personal obligation to grnat the equitable easemet and had sold the land without the intention of goingthrough with it

Question 5

tuscany

Answer 5

• r and T in a ASAP, prop purched subject to existing tenancies and a demo clause for tenancies to be terminated on 6 month notice
• r prior to sale had enetred into LEASE w G for 3 years that also incl demo clause but not in effect for 6 years, so g made resturant
• T then communicated plans to develop and G rised concerns abt his ivestment and demo clause and T assured he “wouldnt do that to him”
• the promise gave rise to an estoppel claim taht was sufficnet unconscionable to amount to an IP claim
• it was also lta fruad had he had purchased units knwoing of G iterest and renos, he bought propr to develop and was not honest in delaings with g

Question 6

smith v hugh watt

Answer 6

• local labour party had tranferred land into trust for local members to stop national from gaining control, trust sold land and invested in an apartment, trust was taken over by act, whihc changed terms of trust not to include laabour as beneficiaries
• rule change was a breach of trust that gave rise to a IP claim, key element is the knowldeg or involvement of the reg prop in the unconscionable or illegal acrt or omission in issue

Question 7

as per step one of IP claim, being inconsisnte with the torrens system what wpuld this look like if you were being consiebt

Answer 7

is svaing people dealing with the trouble of investigating the validity of title, priovides certinty of title

Question 8

prangley

Answer 8

• parents sell land to duaghter but continue to occupy on a grazing lisnces, higahter looked to sell quickly and under val
• d held land on constrictive trust for rents, she new about the lisnces and had a moral obliagtion to give effect to it

Question 9

whats to note on the prangley case

Answer 9

that the finding of the equitable interest of the parents was argueable, courts found it was but didnt concluse that there was DEF an EI on the facts