Property LAWS8009 Mid-Semester Problem Academic Integrity

Assignment s1 2024
ChatGTP and similar software
may not be used for any part
Due: 22 April 2024 at 11.55 pm via Turnitin on iLearn of this assignment. Use of
such software for this
Word limit: 2000 words, excluding footnotes (writing assignment constitutes serious
above the word limit will not be marked). No academic misconduct.
bibliography is needed.
Posting this question on any
The mid-semester assignment is based on your readings in internet site or asking any
iLearn up to the end of The Torrens System. You do not other person (online, at work,
need to go beyond these readings, other than reading the within your family or friends)
sections of legislation in their original form and reading to help you answer the
cases in full when necessary. Consequently, you should assignment is contract
not use Google, notes from other students, or research cheating, whether you pay the
cases and legislation that you have not been taught other person or not.
thinking you will earn extra marks. What you find will
inevitably be irrelevant to the question. You can discuss the
assignment with your peers in
Remember, law is a bento box, not a soup pot. Don’t put the course, but you must not
everything in a ‘pot’ stir it round and hope you ladle out answer the question together,
the right bits. Applying existing law (as opposed to as this is collusion.
creating law) is not about what seems fair. Legal analysis
starts with methodically putting things in their correct Contract cheating and
box. So: collusion constitute
unacceptable academic
• Read the facts to work out what is in issue. In conduct under the Macquarie
property, what is in issue will generally be who Academic Integrity Policy,
owns the land and who else might have rights to it. and may lead to a finding of
breach of academic integrity.
• Identify each interest in land
• Apply the law to those interests in land
This has very serious
• Come to a conclusion, based on an accurate consequences for law
application of the law. students, who are required
• While the above is essentially ILAC, do not use to disclose any adverse
ILAC as headings. You need to internalise the integrity finding to the
ILAC process and use headings that logically Legal Practitioners
relate to the problem you are analysing. Admission Board when they
• Write clearly, plainly, and professionally (but not apply for admission to
in dot points). Don’t use ‘big’, academic words; practice. Failure to disclose
just write clearly. Read your writing aloud. If you adverse findings can lead to
cannot speak it easily, rewrite it until you can. permanent bars to legal
• When writing your answer, please comply with practice.
the Australian Guide to Legal Citation, 4th ed.
 Rubric

Unsatisfactory Minimal Effective Excellent Outstanding

Criteria (fail) (pass) (credit) (distinction) (high
distinction)
0-49% 50%-64% 65%-74% 75%-84% 85%-100%

Characterisation Very poor

of facts characterisation with Basic Effective Accurate and Accurate,
substantial errors characterisation. characterisation. Few clear thorough, and
and/or omissions Some errors key errors or characterisation. clear
and/or omissions. Minor/no key characterisation.
omissions errors or No or only
omissions insignificant,
errors.

Identification of Poor identification Basic Effective Thorough Comprehensive

relevant law of relevant law. identification of identification of identification of identification of
Substantial errors relevant law. relevant law. Some relevant relevant
and/or omissions Errors and/or errors or omissions. law. Minor/no law. No or only
omissions errors or insignificant,
omissions errors.

Application of No, poor or Basic Effective application Excellent Outstanding

law and legal inaccurate application of of law and legal application of application of
reasoning application of law law and legal reasoning law and legal law and legal
and legal reasoning reasoning reasoning reasoning

Communication: Poor/unclear Basic writing Effective, clear Excellent, clear, Outstanding,

writing and writing, incorrect and/or basic writing, and effective and professional clear,
structure use of words, and/or structure structure writing and professional
illogical, unclear logical, writing and
structure effective logical,
structure effective
structure
Question

Bruce Zhang was the registered proprietor of lot 12 in SP79307 (attached). Bruce didn’t drive and so
in 2010 he agreed to sell his parking space in a brick garage behind the apartment building to
Noushin Baker. Bruce and Noushin signed a contract containing the essential terms and Noushin
paid Bruce the $20,000 purchase price. Noushin used the parking space when she was at work
nearby.

In 2019, Bruce moved into a nursing home and gave his apartment to his daughter Felicity, who
became the registered proprietor of lot 12. She wanted to use the apartment as security for a loan
to start an ethical make-up business with her friend Vanessa Vargas.

Felicity negotiated for a loan of $500,000 from Bligh Bank, providing them with a business plan, as
well as Vanessa’s business credentials. The bank’s solicitor, Daniel McEvoy, asked Felicity to come to
his office with her passport and drivers licence so that he could verify her identity and keep the
appropriate records. Felicity did so and the bank’s mortgage was registered on 1 July 2019.

By May 2021, the business was struggling, and Vanessa could not pay the rent on her house. She
rang Bligh Bank and spoke to Daniel McEvoy explaining their difficulties. She told Daniel that Felicity
had asked her to arrange for a further $300,000 loan, using Felicity’s apartment as security. Vanessa
said she would bring in a mortgage contract that Felicity had signed. In fact, Vanessa had not asked
Felicity but thought a further loan was the best thing to do. She had become frustrated with
Felicity’s caution in business matters, so she signed Felicity’s signature on the mortgage contract.
Daniel thought it was odd that Felicity had not spoken to him, but he knew Vanessa was her business
partner, so he arranged for the money to be deposited in Vanessa’s personal account and he
registered a second mortgage over 12/SP79307 securing $300,000.

Felicity made repayments on the $500,000 loan every month and Vanessa initially did the same in
relation to the $300,000 loan. However, the business continued to go badly and by early 2022,
Vanessa told Daniel she could not make any more repayments. Daniel was worried that he might get
in trouble with his boss, Yung, for registering the second mortgage without checking with Yung first,
and so Daniel decided to transfer the second mortgage to his brother, Jake, to stall for time. He told
Jake that it was just a technicality, and he did not need to do anything. Jake became the registered
proprietor of the second mortgage.

By late 2022, with a heavy heart, Felicity accepted that the business was not viable. She decided to
sell the apartment and repay her loan. First, she spoke to Noushin and told her that whatever
arrangement Noushin had with her father would have to end. Noushin then consulted a solicitor,
Lamia Fisher, explaining that she bought a garage in an apartment block and was being prevented
from using it. Lamia had heard about people buying parking spaces in strata schemes and knowing
that time might be critical, she promptly lodged a caveat for Noushin claiming rights over the garage
pursuant to the contract Noushin told her about.

Felicity also contacted Bligh Bank and spoke to Yung about what she needed to do to sell her
apartment and repay her loan. Yung asked her about the second mortgage to Jake McEvoy and
Felicity said she knew nothing about it. Yung did some investigations and realized that something
was very amiss. He gave Felicity the details and advised her to contact a lawyer.

You work for a senior partner in the firm that Felicity consults. She asks you to write her a memo
setting out what rights Felicity or others may have in relation to 12/SP79307.

(Note, the form of the memo does not matter. Just don’t write in dot points.)