Wilnet Pty Ltd v Smart Laundry Manager Pty Ltd (No 2)

[2026] NSWSC 1298

Supreme Court of NSW

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

1. REAL PROPERTY — possession of land — registered proprietor — Torrens title — indefeasibility — exceptions for tenancies of which registered proprietor had notice — where occupier asserted agreement with previous proprietor for fixed term lease — where occupier asserted in personam exception — no fixed term lease — no in personam exception
1. CIVIL PROCEDURE — conduct of proceedings — multiple applications for adjournment — medical grounds — application refused — application to reopen — no basis for reopening — application refused

An email exchange in which a landlord describes a proposed arrangement as a 'trial period' and reserves the right to 'commit to a formal signed lease' falls within the third category of [name withheld] v [name withheld] and does not give rise to a binding agreement for a fixed-term lease, even where the tenant subsequently performs the stipulated conditions.
The s 42(1)(d) exception to Torrens indefeasibility for tenancies of which the registered proprietor had notice operates only on tenancies that actually exist at the date of registration; notice of a tenant's unsubstantiated assertion of a fixed-term lease does not engage the exception where no such lease was created.
An in personam exception to indefeasibility requires the registered proprietor to have undertaken an obligation or acknowledged the claimed interest; mere acceptance of rent at the existing rate after settlement, combined with express denial of any prior arrangement, does not constitute the requisite acknowledgement.