Black v Garnock : implications for Queensland conveyancing practice

Abstract

What was previously established as a fundamental principle, that a judgment creditor may take no interest beyond what the judgment debtor could give, has now been called into question by the decision of the High Court in Black v Garnock [2007] HCA 31. This article examines the implications of the decision of the High Court for conveyancing practice in Queensland.

The relevant facts of Black v Garnock [2007] HCA 31 may be briefly stated:

The Garnocks and the Luffs, as purchasers, entered a contract to purchase a rural property from Mrs Smith with settlement due on 24 August 2005. On 23 August 2005, a creditor obtained a writ against Mrs Smith from the District Court of New South Wales.
No caveat was lodged on behalf of the purchasers prior to settlement (there being no equivalent, in New South Wales, of the Queensland settlement notice mechanism).