After the council was registered as the new owner of this property, it came to the plaintiff's attention that because there was an existing building on the property, the council had no legal right to acquire the property without the owner's consent.
The plaintiff took legal action against the council to return the land back to his ownership.
Heldedit
The court ruled in favor of the council, as the transfer was not obtained due to fraud, i.e. the council was not aware at the time that it needed the owners consent, but rather to oversight by the council, and this meant that the Wellington City Council had an indefeasible title to the property.
Footnote: Had this claim not been about real estate, it is likely that the decision would have been different.
Referencesedit
^Gerbic, Philippa; Lawrence, Martin (2003). Understanding Commercial Law (5th ed.). LexisNexis. ISBN0-408-71714-9.
boyd, mayor, wellington, boyd, mayor, wellington, 1924, nzlr, 1174, leading, case, zealand, concept, indefeasibility, title, boyd, mayor, wellingtoncourtcourt, appeal, zealanddecided1924citation, 1924, nzlr, 1174transcript, http, nzlii, sinodisp, cases, nzgazl. Boyd v Mayor of Wellington 1924 NZLR 1174 is a leading case law in New Zealand on the concept of indefeasibility of title 1 Boyd v Mayor of WellingtonCourtCourt of Appeal of New ZealandDecided1924Citation s 1924 NZLR 1174Transcript s http www nzlii org cgi bin sinodisp nz cases NZGazLawRp 1924 58 htmlCourt membershipJudge s sittingAdams J Stout CJ Sim J Stringer J Salmond JKeywordsmistake indefeasibility of titleBackground editThe plaintiff in this case Mr Boyd owned a parcel of land in Wellington until in 1917 the local council compulsorily acquired the land under the Public Works Act 1908 to build part of the Wellington tramway system After the council was registered as the new owner of this property it came to the plaintiff s attention that because there was an existing building on the property the council had no legal right to acquire the property without the owner s consent The plaintiff took legal action against the council to return the land back to his ownership Held editThe court ruled in favor of the council as the transfer was not obtained due to fraud i e the council was not aware at the time that it needed the owners consent but rather to oversight by the council and this meant that the Wellington City Council had an indefeasible title to the property Footnote Had this claim not been about real estate it is likely that the decision would have been different References edit Gerbic Philippa Lawrence Martin 2003 Understanding Commercial Law 5th ed LexisNexis ISBN 0 408 71714 9 nbsp This article relating to case law in New Zealand is a stub You can help Wikipedia by expanding it vte Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Boyd v Mayor of Wellington amp oldid 1013944745, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
