Loading

Solak not followed in Victorian fraud case

Author : Robert Hay KC - 06-02-2015

There is no question that a lender mortgagee has an indefeasible mortgage when registered provided the mortgagee is not involved in the fraud. The question is whether any amount is secured?

In NSW and Victoria the issue has been resolved by determining whether the payment covenant in the forged collateral agreement is incorporated into the registered mortgage.

In Ying the mortgage incorporated a memorandum of common provisions which contained a covenant for payment by reference to any amounts owing under any other agreement between the mortgagor and the lender. The other agreements were also forged.

The thrust of the NSW decisions is that, where the loan agreement on which the lender relies is forged and therefore void, there is no “secured agreement” and therefore no “secured money” within the meaning of the payment covenant in the mortgage. See: Perpetual Trustees Victoria v English [2010] NSWCA 32. The same logic has been applied where the loan agreement (but not the mortgage) is forged. See: Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd v Cox [2014] NSWSC 328. In Solak Pagone J reached a contrary conclusion to the NSW courts. In Solak the mortgage and the loan agreement were forged. Pagone J distinguished the NSW cases on the basis that the mortgage, memorandum of common provisions and loan agreements all defined the mortgagor/borrower as ”You” and “You” was in each case the forger purporting to be Mr Solak. The mortgage was therefore effective as a security.

In Ying Hargrave J disagreed with Solak and followed the NSW decisions. His Honour said that Solak was “plainly wrong” and that there was nothing secured by the mortgage in Solak because there could be no amount owing under a forged loan agreement and there was also nothing secured by the mortgage in Ying. In Ying the plaintiff mortgagee was ultimately successful on the ground that the mortgagor held the mortgaged land on trust for the forger (the husband of the mortgagor) and that the mortgagee was entitled to have the value of the mortgaged land applied to partial repayment of its loans.

About The Author

Robert Hay KC

Recent Posts

The Mortgagee’s Power of Sale

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Estate agents commission fiasco to be fixed

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Landlords likely to consider gross leases

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Solak not followed in Victorian fraud case

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Franchisees beware of arbitration clauses

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

“Terms contract” anomaly confirmed

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Section 32 statements should disclose leases

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Advisers must consider registration of leases

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Changes to excluded retail premises

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Tenant cannot question the landlord’s title

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Option not exercised because of default

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

The Mortgagee’s Power of Sale available

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

The Mortgagee’s Power of Sale out soon

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Farewell Landlord and Tenant Act

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Consequences of repeal of Fair Trading Act

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Farewell to the Fair Trading Act

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

The PPSA – where does one start?

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Beware national lease registration system

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Tenants wins claim for new 5 year term

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Why no requirement for a s.146 notice?

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Section 172 of Property Law Act explained

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Meaning of “terms contract” examined

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Swanton’s case doubted

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Beware of lease variations

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Ministerial determination valid

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Ministerial determination not invalid

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Tenancy in common trumps joint tenancy

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Whoops! Error in start date for Part 2D

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Setting off damages claims against the rent

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Deposits in sales of land

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Deemed assignments and landlord’s consent

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

s.42(2)(e) of Transfer of Land Act 1958

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Section 146 notices

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

The fog is beginning to clear

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

What is the effect of a nominee clause?

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Everything must be in writing

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

When does a deposit become a penalty?

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Tan v Russell now on austlii

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Priority between mortgagee and lessee

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

When will a deposit be a penalty?

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Caps on rent increases permitted

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Loading
Solak not followed in Victorian fraud case | Greens List