Indefeasibility of title in Tasmania may not extend to errors in the Register

Overview

In a recent case, Williamson v Recorder of Titles [2025] TASSC 9, the Supreme Court of Tasmania examined the reinstatement of easements that were previously deleted from the Register in error. The Court had to consider whether indefeasibility of title protected the owner of the servient land from reinstatement of the easements.

Facts

The applicant purchased a property at Murdunna (Lot 1) in 2008. The Sealed Plan originally included six access easements benefitting Lots 1, 2, and 3. In 2007, the Recorder of Titles mistakenly deleted those easements while amending the plan to implement unrelated council resolutions. The deletion was not authorised by the relevant council but was an administrative error. The applicants were unaware that the easements had been deleted from the title.

In 2023, the Recorder of Titles reinstated the deleted easements under section 143C of the Land Titles Act (Act) after a query from the purchaser of Lot 3.

The applicants challenged this reinstatement, claiming it affected their indefeasible title (to Lot 1).

Conclusion

• The Recorder of Titles’ reinstatement of the easements was justified and lawful. The prior deletion was a blatant administrative error, not authorised by council or law.
• The Recorder of Titles had power to correct the error under section 143C of the Act, and any argument based on indefeasibility failed due to statutory exceptions and discoverability of the error.
• Section 40(3)(e)(ib) of the Act, introduced in 2012, applied as a statutory exception to indefeasibility, allowing correction of omitted easements.
• The error was discoverable on a proper title search. The Court stated:

“Given that the wrongful deletion of the 6 access easements would have been evident from a proper search of the Register by the applicants prior to their purchase of the relevant land, the principle of indefeasibility, if it applies in respect of action taken under s 143C at all, does not apply in the current circumstances… from… when the applicants purchased the land… until 2 June 2023… anyone searching the title documents thoroughly would have observed a conflict between the sealed plan which showed the access easements deleted, but to which no reference was made in notations made by the Recorder.”

Key takeaway

This case highlights the importance of undertaking timely and comprehensive due diligence enquiries and searches when entering into property purchases.