Fink v Robertson [1907] HCA 7
Foreclosure under secs. 129 and 130 of the Transfer of Land Act 1890, followed by registration as proprietor, extinguishes the mortgage debt; no action lies thereafter for recovery under the covenant in the mortgage.
- Parties
- Appellant; Defendant: Catherine Fink; Respondents; Plaintiffs: James Robertson (deceased), by his executors
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 28 March 1907
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Final Judgment by High Court of Australia, on Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; judgment for the defendant (appellant).
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Land Act 1890, Foreclosure, Extinguishment of Mortgage Debt, Mortgagee's Right to Sue on Covenant After Foreclosure
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Catherine Fink
Appellant; Defendant
James Robertson (deceased), by his executors
Respondents; Plaintiffs
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment by High Court of Australia, on Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a mortgagee, having foreclosed and become registered proprietor under the Transfer of Land Act 1890, can subsequently sue on the covenant to repay the mortgage debt
- 2 Whether foreclosure under the Act operates as an extinguishment of the mortgage debt
Ratio Decidendi
Foreclosure under secs. 129 and 130 of the Transfer of Land Act 1890, followed by registration as proprietor, extinguishes the mortgage debt; no action lies thereafter for recovery under the covenant in the mortgage.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; judgment for the defendant (appellant).
Orders
- Judgment to be entered for the defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment