Real Property - Torrens title - Easements - Extinguishment - Where Recorder of Titles mistakenly deleted registered easements without such direction from the council - Where the Recorder of Titles reinstated the deleted easements pursuant to s143C of the Land Titles Act 1980 - Whether s143C only allowed the Recorder of Titles to correct an error on the plan - s143C empowered the Recorder of Titles to rectify the mistake - The easements are reinstated - Application Dismissed

Land Titles Act 1980 (Tas) s143C, 144(2), 4, 33, 39. 40

Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993 (Ts) s 103, 89

Nightingale v Recorder of Titles [2018] TASSC 56 applied.

Olympus Superannuation Fund (Tas) Pty Ltd v Recorder of Titles [2023] TASFC 6 referred to,

Real Property - Torrens title - Indefeasibility of title - Exceptions to indefeasibility - Wrong description of parcels - Where the applicants' purchased the land after the easements had been mistakenly deleted - Where the applicants' had no knowledge of the deletion of the easement - Where a search of the Register would reveal that the easements were deleted by mistake - Where claim to indefeasible Title does not apply so as to deny the reinstatement of the easements - The easements are reinstated - Application Dismissed

Land Titles Act 1980 (Tas) s143C, 51, 40(3)(e)(ib), 87(20(a), 94(2)

Olympus Superannuation Fund (Tas) Pty Ltd v Recorder of Titles [2023] TASFC 6, Bursill Enterprises Pty Ltd v Berger Bos Trading co Pty Ltd [1971] HCA 9, (1971) 124 CLR 73, Westfield Management Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd [2007] HCA 45 applied

Castle Constructions Pty Ltd v Sahab Holdings [2013] HCA 11, 247 CLR 149, Deguisa v Lynn [2020] HCA 39, 268 CLR 683, Carr v Finance Corporation of Australia Ltd (No2) (1982) 150 CLR 139 referred to.

First and Second Applicants: G Berlic, D Dexter

First and Second Applicants: Elit Lawyers by McGirr & Snell

Judgment Number: [2025] TASSC 9

RECORDER OF TITLES and SANDRA TAGLIERI as Trustee of the

1. Mr and Mrs Williamson have applied, pursuant to s 144(2) of the Land Titles Act 1980 ("the Act"), seeking that the first respondent, the Recorder of Titles, justify his action taken on 2 June 2023 to reinstate six "easement statements", which the first respondent said were "inaccurately deleted at the time of registration of the request to amend Sealed Plan 145738 (C676396) in April 2007."

1. The applicants are husband and wife respectively. In April 2008, they completed the purchase of a property at 19 King George Court, Murdunna in Tasmania, also known as Lot 1 on the relevant subdivision. Murdunna is approximately 60 kilometres east south east of Hobart, about one hour away by road. It is a rural locality, approximately halfway down the Forestier Peninsula, on the Arthur Highway towards Port Arthur. It is popular with people from Hobart for holiday homes and mainly used for weekend getaways.
2. On 17 April 2008, the applicants' then solicitors sent them a letter which enclosed the Certificate of Title for the property known as Volume 145738 Folio 2, that had been issued on 15 April 2008. The letter also attached a copy of Sealed Plan 145738 ("SP 145738"), which contained a notation signed by the first respondent on 17 April 2007, as follows:

"C676396 SUBSTITUTING NEW PLAN PURSUANT TO OUR REQUEST TO AMEND UNDER SECTION 103 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (B M.P.) ACT NUMBER 96 OF 1993".

In addition, the letter included a five page document entitled "Schedule of Easements". On the second page, six easements relating to "right of carriageway and service easement over the right of way (private) and service easement variable width" were struck through. On page five, six easements relating to "Right of Carriageway and Service Easement over the Right of Way 'B' (private) and Service Easement variable width" were stated. At the bottom of page five was a notation as follows:

"Easements on this page were added by me pursuant to a request to amend C676396."

1. The first respondent is a statutory office holder under the Act. The holder of the office is appointed by the Governor under s 4 of the Act. Under s 33, the first respondent is required to keep a Register of Title to land, which is subject to the Act. Pursuant to s 33(4), the Register shall comprise folios of the Register, and dealings registered under the Act, and any other acts specified in a schedule to the Act, as well as subdivisions under the Strata Titles Act 1998, but is not to include maps, plans or documents deposited with the Recorder. Under s 39 of the Act, a folio of the Register is evidence of the particulars recorded in the folio. It is also conclusive evidence that the person named in the folio is the registered proprietor of the land referred to in it. Subject to exceptions set out in s 40, under that section, the title of a registered proprietor to land is indefeasible (see s 40(2)). One exception to the indefeasibility of title is where, under s 40(3)(e)(ib), an easement has been created under the Act, but unintentionally omitted from the folio of the Register for the servient land.
2. The second respondent purchased 10 King George Court, Murdunna, also known as Lot 3 on the subdivision. Before completing the purchase of Lot 3 in June 2023, the second respondent raised a query with the first respondent regarding whether the deletion of the access easements was done by mistake. The first respondent's office reported to the effect that the access easements were deleted by mistake. The first respondent advised the then solicitors for the second respondent by email on 2 June 2023, as follows:

"It appears that the six easements statements on page 2 of the schedule of easements were incorrectly deleted at the time of registration of the Request to Amend Sealed Plan 145738 (C676396) in April 2007. I have now re-instated those six easements. See copy attached hereto."

The letter did not come from the first respondent himself, but from an officer employed in the Land Titles Office. No issue appears to arise as a consequence, given that the officer's action was taken with the express approval of the first respondent and at his direction.

1. The first respondent contends that it was open to him to reinstate the access easements to the Register under s 143C of the Act. The applicants contend that he had no power to do so. That matter is the subject of discussion later in these reasons, and is central to the outcome of the application. Section 143C is headed "Recorder may correct errors on plans". It provides as follows:

"(1) The Recorder may, of the Recorder's own motion, correct an error on a plan or accompanying document deposited or lodged with the Recorder in accordance with this or any other Act.

(2) The Recorder may, before correcting an error, give, to such people as the Recorder considers appropriate, at least seven days written notice of the Recorder's intention to correct the error.

(3) A person may object to the correction proposed to be made by the Recorder by the end of the period specified in the notice give under sub-section (2).

(3A) An objection must be in writing and state the grounds on which it is based.

(b) amend the plan or accompanying document in accordance with the objection,

(ba) amend the plan in accordance with the notice give under subsection (2); or

(5) If the Recorder amends a plan without the approval of the person who deposited or lodged it the Recorder shall add to the plan a note to the effect that it has been amended by the Recorder."

1. After the Recorder took the action to amend the Register to re-instate the access easements, the second respondent completed her purchase of Lot 3. With the re-instatement of the access easements, the second respondent was entitled unequivocally to right of carriageway across the applicants' land to Lot 3.

1. The land relevant to this proceeding was subdivided into four lots in January 2006. On 10 January 2006, the Tasman Council sealed the Sealed Plan for the land and lodged it with the first respondent Recorder. Section 89(1) of the Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993 ("the Local Government (B and MP) Act") permitted the council to cause its seal to be affixed to a final plan, indicating its approval for a plan for the subdivision. There was a schedule of easements in the plan, which included six paragraphs recording various access easements. The access easements allowed the proprietors of lots 1, 2 and 3 shared rights of carriageway to their properties.
2. On 20 November 2006, the council resolved to amend the Sealed Plan and Schedule of Easements pursuant to s 103 of the Local Government (B and MP) Act. The amendments deleted two covenants and added six service easements. The resolution of the council requesting the amendments, did not refer to the access easements being deleted. The council lodged a form with the first respondent requiring the making of the amendments on the Sealed Plan and Schedule of Easements. The first respondent referred to the form as "dealing C676396". That is the dealing referred to at [3].
3. In response to the council's request, the first respondent drew a line through the first and last lines of the six access easements, and a drew a diagonal line through the recording of the access easements, although the access easements were not relevant to the November 2006 request from the council. This error has caused the current controversy. It was a blatant, careless mistake. It should be noted that the person holding the statutory office of the first respondent at the time, is not the person who currently holds that office, or who approved the amendment to the Register in 2023 to acknowledge the 2006 mistake.
4. On 17 April 2007, the first respondent registered the amended schedule, but made a notation on the schedule referring to the adding of the service easements, and the deletion of two covenants. Nothing was noted regarding the deletion of the access easements. The first respondent also noted in handwriting on the Sealed Plan, that "C676396" substituted a new plan pursuant to a request to amend under s 103 of the Local Government (B and MP) Act.
5. When the applicants became registered proprietors of Lot 1 on 15 April 2008, the Schedule of Easements noted on their title did not contain the six access easements, which had been deleted without council making a request for such deletion. The current proprietors of Lot 2, Mr and Mrs Taylor, became registered proprietors on 7 February 2014. Their street address is 16 King George Court Murdunna. Although not parties to this proceeding the outcome of this matter has the same consequences for the Taylors as it does for the second respondent.
6. On 31 May 2023, a surveyor acting for the second respondent, advised her about the deletion of the access easements. He was able to do so by searching the folio of the Register for the property and discovering SP 145738 and tracing the history of the access easements and the circumstances of their removal. Sealed Plan 145738 is referred to in the Certificate of Title as part of schedule 2 and appears as such in the second line of schedule 2. His email to her concluded as follows:

"This may mean that Lot 3 does not actually have a right to use the driveway currently constructed along the access lane to King George Court. I suggest getting advice from a legal expert in land law to clarify this."

1. On 1 June 2023, solicitors then acting for the second respondent informed the first respondent to the effect that the access easements had been deleted by "an error which now needs to be rectified by the respective owners". The correspondence asked for information about the circumstances of the deletion of the access easements.
2. On 2 June 2023, the Principal Examiner (Subdivisions) at the Land Titles Office said that it appeared that the six easements were incorrectly deleted at the time of the request to amend the Sealed Plan, and that he had now re-instated them. The email from the Principal Examiner contained a new Schedule of Easements to SP 145738, where the deletions on page two no longer applied. A notation on the relevant page stated as follows:

"Easements 1 to 6 have been re-instated to section 143C of the Land Titles Act 1980 after being incorrectly deleted pursuant to C676396."

The notation was signed by the first respondent, who dated it 2 June 2023.

1. The amendment to the Schedule of Easements occurred without notice to the applicants. They discovered the amendments by chance in October 2023, while undertaking title searches of their property and neighbouring properties. From October 2023 to August 2024, the applicants were in contact with the first respondent regarding the 2 June 2023 amendment. Although s 143C of the Act permits the Recorder to seek input from anyone affected by any direction or decision of the Recorder, the power to do so is discretionary. No point is currently taken in relation to the failure to give advance notice to the applicants of the intention of the first respondent to amend the Register, other than that it may be a matter relevant to the exercise of the Court's discretion regarding remedy in the event that the Court finds in favour of the applicants. As matters have transpired, this application has led to a situation where the first respondent is now called upon to justify his decision before the Court. The applicants requested the first respondent, under s 144(1)(b) of the Act for him to provide written reasons for the 2 June 2023 amendment. The first respondent provided his reasons for his order or direction amending the Schedule of Easements, by letter to the applicants on 19 December 2024, wherein he referred to his reasons for re-instating the easements, provided in letters sent to the applicants between 25 October 2023 and 17 December 2023. The gist of the first respondent's reasons for his act or direction is that he was rectifying a mistake made in 2006, being the mistake referred to earlier in these reasons.

Availability of s 143C to the Recorder

1. The applicants contend that the first respondent had no power under s 143C to reinstate the access easements on the title to their land. Counsel for the applicants submit that s 143C is confined to correcting error on a plan or accompanying document deposited or lodged with the Recorder. Counsel contend that the error on the schedule of easements (that is, the wrongful crossing out) was not error in a document that was lodged with the Recorder but rather than an error made by the Recorder herself at the relevant time.
2. I reject that interpretation of s 143C as unduly restrictive. The fact that the second reading speech accompanying the Bill that introduced s 143C refers to giving the Recorder power to "reject plans which do not comply with the law" does not mean that the section is so limited, given that there is nothing on the face of the section to show that it is limited to amending plans.
3. In Nightingale v Recorder of Titles [2018] TASSC 56, Brett J at [56] discussed the power of the Recorder to amend and correct plans under s 143C of the Act, but was not thereby intending to confine the operation of the section to those matters. In that case the Recorder had been asked to correct an error in the relevant plan. At [58] his Honour rejected a submission that s 143C was limited to the power to correct errors on the face of a plan. Nothing said in Nightingale suggests that s 143C cannot be used by the Recorder to correct an error contained in a document deposited or lodged with the Recorder that is not a plan, for example a schedule appearing or referred to, on the face of the certificate of title. The error in this case was an error on the Register as a consequence of an error contained in a document "deposited or lodged with the Recorder" being the original document which was lodged with the Recorder which informed the content of the applicant's Certificate of Title being the inclusion of the six access easements. An error was later recorded on the recording of those easements by their striking out. The reference to "an accompanying document" in s 143C includes a reference to a schedule of easements. The section concentrates on the existence of error in a document lodged with the Recorder. As Brett J said in Nightingale at [43] the accuracy of the Register is an important matter. See also Olympus Superannuation Fund (Tas) Pty Ltd v Recorder of Titles [2023] TASFC 6 at [59] per Brett J, with whom Wood and Pearce JJ agreed.
4. I accept the submission of the second respondent that on its face s 143C of the Act applies to circumstances subsisting on the Register, including registered instruments such as a Schedule of Easements, without reference to accrued rights. So much is common sense because accrued rights obtained by mistake are comprehended by the section which enables those mistakes to be remedied. This tends to suggest the question of indefeasibility does not impact on the exercise of power under s 143C. That is the better view. However, out of an abundance of caution, the Court now turns to the issue of indefeasibility of title and its possible impact on the resolution of this matter.

1. It is not in contest in this proceeding, that indefeasibility of title is an essential feature of the Torrens system of Land Titles; see Castle Constructions Pty Ltd v Sahab Holdings [2013] HCA 11, 247 CLR 149 at [20], and Deguisa v Lynn [2020] HCA 39, 268 CLR 638 at [2]- [4]. However, as Brett J observed, in Olympus at [91] "although the general intention the Torrens system is understood, it is critical that it is applied in a particular case according to the relevant legislative provisions applicable in the jurisdiction".
2. At 93 in Olympus, Brett J said:

"The fundamental assumption is that an examination of the Register will identify the nature and extent of the proprietary interest held by the Registered proprietor and by those taking an estate or interest in the land, and further will protect the title of the Registered proprietor against any claims by others not notified on the Register. In respect of both, the Register will be conclusive and exhaustive. In some Australian jurisdictions, both components are provided for in the same section. However, under the Land Titles Act, they are implemented by the combined effect of two sections. Section 39 provides for the conclusive nature of the estate or interest in the land recorded in favour of the Registered proprietor or person entitled to a recorded estate or interest, and s 40 protects the interest of the Registered proprietor with respect to the interests of others in the land, by providing that the owners' title is 'subject only' to estates or interests recorded on the folio."

1. Importantly, at [100] his Honour said after, a review of the relevant authorities, as follows:

"These authorities establish that it is necessary to examine what is recorded in the memorial on the title, as well as any instrument referred to in the memorial which forms part of the Register, in order to determine the true nature of the estate or interest protected by provisions, which in this State have the effect of s 39 and [70](https://jade.io/article/40".

1. His Honour then referred to the judgment of the High Court in Bursill Enterprises Pty Ltd v Berger Bros Trading Co Pty Ltd [1971] HCA 9, (1971) 124 CLR 73. His Honour then said in respect of that matter as follows:

"The critical issue was whether what was notified by the Register was limited to the description in the title, which was incorrect and misleading, or included the actual and different nature of the interest as described in the underlying instrument. The instrument had been Registered as part of the Register book. The majority held that the notification included the underlying Registered instrument, and accordingly, conclusivity and indefeasibility attached to a transfer of land rather than simply an interest described as a right of way. In other words, in order to determine the true nature of the estate or interest protected by the legislative provisions applying the Torrens system, it was necessary to go beyond the memorial on the title, and to examine the terms of the underlying instrument."

1. His Honour then quoted from the judgment of Barwick CJ in Bursill Enterprises where his Honour said:

"It seems to me that it was not intended that the certificate of title alone should provide a purchaser dealing with the Registered proprietor with all the information necessary to be known to comprehend the extent or state of that proprietor's title to the land. The dealings once Registered became themselves part of the Register Book. It was therefore sufficient that their registration should be by statement of their nature recorded on the certificate of title."

1. It is therefore vitally important to identify what the content of the material is which constitutes "any instrument referred to in the memorial which forms part of the Register" for the land in question. Counsel for the second respondent noted that provisions of s 51(1) and (2) of the Act, which have the effect of importing a statement that the land described in the Sealed Plan and the Schedule of Easements form part of the Register. The true extent of an estate is not limited to what is recorded on the memorial of title, but extends to any instrument referred to in the memorial, which forms part of the Register; see Olympus at [103]-[104].
2. In this case, SP 145738 is referred to in the Register at schedule 2. Sealed plan 145738 is a "dealing" within the context of that word as used by Barwick CJ in Bursill Enterprises. As the second respondent's surveyor's efforts proved to be the case, a proper search of the Register immediately before the purchase of the relevant land by the applicants would have revealed that the six access easements statements were deleted in error. The availability of that information enabled anyone conducting an appropriate search to discover the obvious error. This amounts to notice of the error, such that the principles of indefeasibility of title do not apply to protect the applicants in this case. The applicants had information necessary to comprehend the extent or state of the registered title to the land in question prior to completing their purchase of it. As the High Court said in Westfield Management Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd [2007] HCA 45 at [5]:

"Together with the information appearing on the relevant folio, the registration of dealings manifests the scheme of the Torrens system to provide third parties with the information necessary to comprehend the extent or state of the Registered title to the land in question. This important element in the Torrens system is discussed by Barwick CJ in Bursill Enterprises Pty Ltd v Berger Bros Trading Co Pty Ltd."

1. Given that the wrongful deletion of the six access easements would have been evident from a proper search of the Register by the applicants prior to their purchase of the relevant land, the principle of indefeasibility, if it applies in respect of action taken under s 143C at all, does not apply in the current circumstances. As counsel for the first respondent submits from 17 April 2007 (when the applicants purchased the land) until 2 June 2023 (when the first respondent made the decision under challenge) anyone searching the title documents thoroughly would have observed a conflict between the sealed plan which showed the access easements deleted, but to which no reference was made in notations made by the Recorder.

1. Counsel for the first respondent submits that s 40(3)(e)(ib) of the Act also operates as an exception to indefeasibility in the current circumstances. That provision states that:

"The title of a Registered proprietary of land is not indefeasible ... so far as regards ... an easement that has been created under this Act but unintentionally omitted from the folio of the Register for this servient land ..."

1. The combined effect of s 87(2)(a) of the Local Government (B and M P) Act and s 105(1) of the Act is that the access easements are created under the Act. That is because a sealed plan only takes effect after it is accepted by the Recorder. Under s 94(2) of the Act, the Recorder is required to create any folios the Recorder considers necessary. An interest in land can only become indefeasible when it is Registered. Beforehand, the easement created under the Local Government (B and M P) Act remains inchoate prior to its registration under the Act. Therefore the relevant easements in this matter were created under the Act. They were also unintentionally omitted from the folio of the Register. Accordingly, s 40(3)(e)(ib) of the Act applies as an exception to indefeasibility of title in this matter, in the event that indefeasibility would otherwise prevent the Recorder taking the action that he did in this case under s 143C of the Act. There is no evidence that the omission of the relevant six access easements from the folio of the Register was intentional.
2. Counsel for the applicants submit that s 40(3)(e)(ib) does not apply because it was not added to the Act until 2012 amendment. Therefore, so the argument runs, the provision cannot be retrospective to affect any indefeasibility which may have been obtained in 2008.
3. In introducing the 2012 amendments, the Minister at the time said in his second reading speech as follows:

"The fifth major amendment provides for the inclusion of omitted easements as an exception to indefeasibility. It should be noted at the present time a Registered proprietor holds his land free from all easements which are not Registered on his title with some exceptions provided for under the Act, including those easements that stem from an Act or operation of the law or statue and equitable instruments. The exceptions do not include easements legally created under the Act and Registered on a folio of the Register, but which were later omitted for example on a new folio when the Register is issued. That is the new folio of the Register does not include an easement that was included in the previous folio of the Register. The Act will be amended to include this circumstance in a list of exceptions. This amendment rightfully protects the interest of a person that has the benefit of a legally created easement which through no fault of their own has been omitted from a folio of the Register."

1. The intention of the amendment was to protect the interest of a person who has the benefit of a legally created instrument which for no fault of their own was later omitted from the folio of the Register. It clearly applies to the current situation on its face. However, counsel for the applicants contend the principle against retrospectivity stops it applying. The presumption against retrospectivity only applies when it interferes with rights that have already accrued. So much is clear from the judgment of Mason, Murphy and Wilson JJ in Carr v Finance Corporation of Australia Ltd (No 2) (1982) 150 CLR 139 at 151. It is apparent that the amendment to the Act which produced s 40(3)(e)(ib) was intended to apply to past events in circumstances where the rights had not accrued. Accordingly, the Court is of the view that the above provision applies in current circumstances to defeat any otherwise applicable principle of indefeasibility which would have prevented the Recorder from removing the easements. The submissions of the first respondent are consistent with those of the second respondent. In summary, counsel submits that the first respondent had the power to correct the error which occurred when the access easements were removed from the Sealed Plan unintentionally. Counsel also submits that the removal of the access easements was an error and that indefeasibility concepts did not affect the power and right of the Recorder to correct the error. That submission is accepted for the above reasons.

1. The applicants have standing to make the application to require the first respondent to justify his order or direction, constituted by his decision to restore the six access easements to the Schedule of Easements on the Sealed Plan, forming part of the title to the applicants' land; see s 144(2) of the Act.
2. The decision of the first respondent to re-instate the six access easements was justified to correct an error. In summary, the council's decision to amend the Sealed Plan in 2006 did not include any decision to amend the Sealed Plan in the way the first respondent amended it at the time. The first respondent, therefore, was never empowered to amend the Schedule of Easements when there was no request from council for her to do so. In the event that the Recorder at the time did have power, there was no basis for her to delete the easements in any event. The deletion was plainly an error, which was required to be corrected to ensure the accuracy of the Register.
3. The amendment to correct the error was entitled to be made by the first respondent, irrespective of concepts of indefeasibility, because the Act recognises that mistakes may occur which would require rectification. That is why s 143C (amongst other provisions such as s 139) was added to the Act to ensure the accuracy of the Register. Any examination of the sort undertaken by the second respondent's surveyor, if undertaken by a conveyancing lawyer or practitioner involved in property law matters, would have revealed that an error was made in 2006 for the reasons identified by counsel for the second respondent. In any event, due to the provisions of s 40(3)(e)(ib) indefeasibility of title does not apply to the six access easements as they were created under the Act and were unintentionally removed from the folio of the Register for the applicants' land.
4. It would not be an appropriate exercise of the Court's discretion to grant the relief sought by the applicants, which is to invalidate the amendment of the first respondent to the Register, which was designed to rectify a mistake and restore the deletion of the access easements, which should never have been deleted.
5. For the above reasons, the Court considers that the first respondent has justified to the Court his order or direction contained in his decision of 2 June 2023, to re-instate the access easements which were deleted officially on 17 April 2007 as a consequence of an error made the previous year. Also for the reasons given above, the first respondent was authorised by s 143C of the Act to amend the Schedule of Easements to SP 145738. That power was exercisable irrespective of the concept of indefeasibility of title, but in any event, s 40(3)(e)(ib) applies to make the relevant easements protected from the concept of indefeasibility of title.
6. Any adverse consequences applying to the applicants, who are subject to the easements which they considered previously when they bought the land that they were not subject to, may have been avoided by a more careful examination of the history of the changes to the Sealed Plan by the solicitors then acting for them. Further, a judgment of this Court, which would have the effect of reinstating the deletion of the access easements, would do injustice to the second respondent, who purchased her property in the knowledge that the access easements, which had been mistakenly deleted, had been restored before her purchase was finalised.
7. For the above reasons the Court considers that the first respondent was justified in amending the Register for the applicants' land by re-instating the six access easements which were deleted in error officially by the Recorder in April 2007.

1. Had the Court decided to the contrary of what is contained in these reasons for judgment and held that the exercise of power by the first respondent was invalid or ought not to have occurred, the Court would have exercised its discretion in the favour of the applicants to enable them to obtain the relief sought in the proceeding to invalidate it. It would have not been necessary for the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, in those circumstances to consider the fact that the decision of the Recorder was made without notice to the applicants. That is because, in any event, the matters relating to whether the Recorder was justified or not in making his decision have now been fully ventilated before this Court.

1. Having regard to the foregoing reasons for judgment, the Court will order as follows:
   1. The applicants' application is dismissed.
   2. Liberty to apply is reserved to the parties on the question of costs within fourteen (14) days of the publication of these reasons for judgment.