Registrar-General v Behn [1981] HCA 36

Registrar-General v Behn [1981] HCA 36

The respondent's default judgment against Cornic for the unpaid purchase price was an unsatisfied and worthless judgment on a different cause of action and did not extinguish, merge, or reduce the statutory claim for damages under s. 126. Cornic was the person liable under s. 126(2)(c) and was insolvent, so the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Appeal From a Judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['real Property Act 1900 N.s.w. S. 126' 'assurance Fund' 'fraudulent Deprivation of Land' 'unsatisfied Judgment' 'double Recovery' 'res Judicata and Merger']
['property Law' 'torrens Title' 'statutory Compensation'] ['real Property Act 1900 N.s.w. S. 126' 'assurance Fund' 'fraudulent Deprivation of Land' 'unsatisfied Judgment' 'double Recovery' 'res Judicata and Merger']

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court Appeal From a Judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an unsatisfied default judgment obtained by the respondent against Cornic for the unpaid purchase price precluded recovery of damages under s. 126 of the Real Property Act 1900 N.S.W. against the Registrar-General as nominal defendant.' "Whether the Registrar-General's liability under s. 126(5) was limited or defeated because the respondent had already obtained judgment against Cornic." 'Whether the respondent could have maintained a statutory damages action under s. 126 against Cornic notwithstanding the earlier contract judgment.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's default judgment against Cornic for the unpaid purchase price was an unsatisfied and worthless judgment on a different cause of action and did not extinguish, merge, or reduce the statutory claim for damages under s. 126. Cornic was the person liable under s. 126(2)(c) and was insolvent, so the conditions for recovery against the Registrar-General as nominal defendant under s. 126(5) were satisfied. Any risk of double recovery could be controlled by the court's powers to prevent double satisfaction, not by denying the statutory claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']