When can the Recorder of Titles fix the Register? The Full Court draws a line

Overview

In the recent decision of Williamson, Williamson v Recorder of Titles [2026] TASFC 2 (18 February 2026), the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania has determined an appeal from the decision in Williamson v Recorder of Titles [2025] TASSC 9 – see our article on that earlier case published 19 June 2025 here.

This concerns a dispute over easements and specifically, whether the Recorder of Titles (Recorder) was legally allowed to reinstate six easement statements on a subdivision plan after they had been deleted more than 15 years earlier.

What the Full Court decided

The appellants were successful in their appeal.

The Full Court found that:

• The reliance of section 143C of the Land Titles Act 1980 (Tas) by Recorder to reinstate the easements was an error, as section 143C only allows the Recorder to correct errors in documents that were lodged with the Recorder (such as plans or accompanying documents).
• In this case, the lodged documents contained no error. The Court noted:
  “There was no plan or accompanying document in the present case, that was deposited or lodged with the Recorder in accordance with the [Land Titles] Act (or any other) that contained an error.”
• The only error was made by the Recorder, years earlier, when the easements were mistakenly struck through. Accordingly, as the error was not in a lodged document, section 143C did not apply, and the Recorder’s reinstatement of the easements was invalid.
• The reinstated easements no longer apply unless the Recorder takes further action under a different section of the Act.
• The Full Court did not decide whether the appellants’ title was indefeasible or whether the easements should exist – only that the Recorder has used the incorrect power.
• The Recorder may still consider correcting the Register under section 139, which deals with errors made in the Register itself.

Key takeaways

The Court ruled that the Recorder acted outside its powers when reinstating the easements in the manner it did. The appellants succeeded because the law only allows certain types of corrections without notice.

As the Court did not consider the application of the indefeasibility provisions in relation to easements that were deleted in error, the potential remains that the burdening easements could be reinstated over the appellants’ land. The Court did suggest that if the Recorder did take action to reinstate the easements in reliance on other powers it has to correct errors, they would need to consider matters such as the period that the appellants have owned the land and not been the subject of those easements.