Barnes v. Addy Claims and the Indefeasibility of Torrens Title

25 Pages Posted: 4 Mar 2008

See all articles by Matthew Harding

Matthew Harding

University of Melbourne - Law School


This article considers the proper relationship between Barnes v Addy claims and the indefeasibility of Torrens title. In some recent Australian cases, including Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd, courts have regarded this question as an important one to be resolved by balancing competing fundamental philosophies. Yet in other recent Australian cases, the question has been all but ignored. This article argues that, although the Torrens system may be underpinned by competing fundamental philosophies, these are no more apparent, nor any more difficult to reconcile, in cases involving Barnes v Addy claims than in cases involving claims of other types. The key to the argument is a correct understanding of the remedies that are available in response to a successful Barnes v Addy claim. This article concentrates on those remedies.

Keywords: Torrens, remedies, Australia, Barnes, Addy

JEL Classification: K1, K4

Suggested Citation

Harding, Matthew, Barnes v. Addy Claims and the Indefeasibility of Torrens Title. Melbourne Univeristy Law Review, Vol. 31, No. 2, 2007, U of Melbourne Legal Studies Research Paper No. 310, Available at SSRN:

Matthew Harding (Contact Author)

University of Melbourne - Law School ( email )

University Square
185 Pelham Street, Carlton
Victoria, Victoria 3010

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics