One of the key principles of Torrens registration is the "mirror" principle.
That is that the certificate of title is a record of all dealings on that property.
Lawyers in Tasmania refuse to look any further than the certificate of title, that is the
print out that comes from LISA, the Land Titles Computer system.
The rationale for not searching any further is that the duplicate certificate or computer print out is
a true record of all the relevant dealings on that parcel of land.
Lawyers have been depending on what is commonly called the "certificate of title" for many years in this state. However what is commonly called the "certificate of title" is in fact the "duplicate certificate of title" and is not
the original certificate which is kept in the office of the Recorder of the Titles. The information which is on the duplicate certificate of title may not reflect the information which is
actually recorded in the register itself. This can particularly be the case when the information is held both on paper and electronically.
While lawyers and mortgagees may rely on the duplicate certificate of title saying that the information will be the same as that held by the Recorder, this
need not necessarily be the case.
For example in some cases in Tasmania, the female proprietor has not been recorded electronically in the Lands, Titles office
database.
In the following example of title 2443/98:
it can be seen from looking at the dealings that myself and my partner are recorded as being transferred the title
by dealing number B20330.
However if we look at the list of registered dealings in what is known as the Public Purchaser's Index, we can see that
while dealing B20330 is recorded in my partner's list of dealings:
the dealing B20330 is not recorded in my list of registered dealings.
This ommission would be
enough to have any transfer made by both tenants in common made at a later date, rejected by staff at the Lands, Titles Office as the number and identities of the
tenants in common does not match with the records held within the registry itself.
In this case it is apparent that while the paper duplicate certificate can give an appearance of regularity, a close examination
of the dealings discloses discrepancies in the information recorded.
Questions which could be asked here include:
Is the title of tenants in common "indefeasible" in the legal sense if the information about the dealings is recorded wrongly in
the register itself (ie electronically)?
Is a system in which the second proprietor, usually the woman tenant in common, is more likely to get left off the
register, discriminatory against women in general?
Why wasn't the failure to register dealing B203230 against my name picked up by the LTO system? HOME
