Registration of Deeds Regulations 2004

The central concept is a memorial - defined in regulation 3 as “any judgment, deed, will, conveyance or instrument presented for registration”. This is the unit of registration under the Act. A memorial is the document that carries the legal content; the regulations do not govern what must be in the deed or will, only how the physical paper is to be prepared and what fee is payable. The definition is deliberately broad, capturing any instrument that a person wishes to register under the 1856 Act.

The Registrar is the Registrar of Deeds and Transfers, a statutory officer whose powers and duties are largely set out in the parent Act. Under these regulations, the Registrar’s role is to accept or reject memorials based on format compliance, to charge and collect fees, and to exercise the discretionary waiver or refund power introduced in 2025. The Registrar is not required to assess the legal validity of a memorial, only its physical acceptability.

A TLA application is defined by cross‑reference to the Transfer of Land Act 1893. It means an application to bring land under that Act - that is, to convert land from the old‑system deeds registration to Torrens title. The regulations create a special regime for these applications: no registration fee for the memorial (Schedule 1 Division 1, item 1(a)), no certification fee if the certification relates to the TLA application (Division 3 item 1(a)), and a discretionary waiver or refund for copies supplied for the purpose (regulation 5A). This is a deliberate incentive to encourage holders of old‑system land to move to the Torrens system, which is cheaper for the state to administer and provides clearer title.

The fee schedule is divided into three divisions: registrations (including cancelling or amending by court order), reproduction of documents, and miscellaneous items (certifications, withdrawal of certain tax memorials, and a catch‑all for services not specifically mentioned). The fees are not static; the compilation table shows an amendment nearly every year to adjust the dollar amounts, presumably for inflation or to recover administrative costs. The fee structure is a form of user‑pays pricing, but with a notable exception: TLA‑related services attract no fee, shifting the cost from the applicant to the general taxpayer.

The concept of withdrawal of a memorial appears in Schedule 1 Division 3 item 2: $188.60 to withdraw a memorial registered under the now‑repealed Land Tax Assessment Act 1976 or under Part 6 Division 2 of the Taxation Administration Act 2003. This fee applies to a specific class of tax‑related memorials that have become obsolete after legislative change, a legacy provision that retains a revenue stream for the state.

The regulations affect anyone who needs to register a document under the Registration of Deeds Act 1856. In practice, that means solicitors and conveyancers who handle property transactions involving old‑system land, private individuals who own or deal in such land, and banks and other lenders that take security over old‑system title. Because the Torrens system covers the vast majority of land in Western Australia, the deeds registration system is now a niche but legally important remnant. Its users are primarily those who hold or deal with parcels that have never been brought under the Transfer of Land Act.

The regulations also affect applicants under the Transfer of Land Act who are making a TLA application. For them, the regulations offer a fee holiday: no charge for registering the supporting memorial, no charge for certifications, and a discretionary waiver for copies. This reduces the cost of conversion, though the applicant still bears the other costs of the application (surveys, legal work, etc.). The waiver/refund power gives the Registrar the ability to further reduce costs on a case‑by‑case basis, introducing an element of administrative discretion that could be used to assist hardship cases or to expedite conversions.

The Registrar is the primary administrator. The regulations give the Registrar the power to reject non‑compliant memorials, to assess fees for miscellaneous services, and to waive or refund copy fees for TLA applications. This discretionary power is a potential source of inconsistency; two applicants with identical circumstances could be treated differently depending on the Registrar’s satisfaction. The regulations do not set criteria for satisfaction, leaving the Registrar with unfettered discretion. This is a compliance risk for applicants: they cannot predict with certainty whether a fee will be waived, and they have no right of review under these regulations.

Researchers, journalists and genealogists who request copies of old deeds are affected by the $32.60 copy fee. Unlike some other jurisdictions, there is no provision for a reduced fee for non‑commercial or scholarly use. The only waiver/refund is for TLA applications. This creates a barrier to access for those seeking to inspect historical records, especially if multiple documents are needed.

Accountants and tax practitioners dealing with the residual provisions of the Land Tax Assessment Act 1976 may need to withdraw a tax memorial registered under that Act or the Taxation Administration Act 2003. The fee of $188.60 is the same as a standard registration, so there is no discount for what is essentially an administrative housekeeping task. This is a minor but persistent cost for clearing old encumbrances from the register.

Finally, the state government is affected because the regulations set the revenue stream from the deeds registry. The fees are indexed annually, and the TLA exemptions reduce revenue in exchange for the long‑term benefit of converting land to Torrens title. The regulation does not require a cost‑benefit analysis, so it is unclear whether the exemption is net beneficial to the state fisc.

The regulations impose a narrow set of duties, primarily on the person presenting a memorial for registration. Regulation 4(1) requires that every memorial: (a) be on good quality A4 paper approved by the Registrar; (b) be clearly and legibly handwritten in ink, printed or typewritten; (c) have a 51 mm binding margin on each page, free of matter, on the left hand side of the face sheet and corresponding side for subsequent sheets; and (d) have all writing of sufficient strength to bear photographic reproduction. These are mechanical duties. Failure to comply gives the Registrar the right to reject the memorial under regulation 4(2). The duty is strict: there is no de minimis exception or power to accept a memorial that substantially complies. A margin that is 49 mm instead of 51 mm could be grounds for rejection, creating a potential trap for the unwary.

The Registrar has the right, but not the obligation, to reject a non‑compliant memorial. This is discretionary; the regulations do not say the Registrar must reject. In theory, the Registrar could accept a defective memorial, but in practice, rejection is likely because the format is essential for archival reproduction. The Registrar’s discretion is not qualified by any criteria, raising due process concerns: a person whose memorial is rejected has no clear avenue of appeal under these regulations (though judicial review of the Registrar’s decision might be available under administrative law).

Regulation 5A creates a right for applicants to have a copy fee waived or refunded if the copy is supplied for a TLA application and the Registrar is satisfied it is appropriate. This is a contingent right: it depends on the Registrar’s satisfaction. It is not an entitlement; the Registrar may decline. The regulation does not state what factors the Registrar should consider, nor does it require reasons to be given. This places the applicant in a weak bargaining position.

The fee schedule confers rights on the Registrar to collect fees. The fees are fixed except for the catch‑all in Division 3 item 3: “any service not mentioned … fee, if any, as assessed by the Registrar, not exceeding actual cost”. This gives the Registrar a quasi‑contractual power to set a price for any unlisted service, up to the cost actually incurred. The applicant has no right to challenge the assessment under these regulations; they must pay or forgo the service.

The regulations do not confer any substantive rights on users to register a document; they only set the conditions for doing so. The parent Act would contain the substantive right to register, but these regulations condition that right on format and payment. If a person meets the format and pays the fee, the Registrar must accept the memorial (subject to any grounds for rejection in the Act or elsewhere). The regulations do not create any new rights of appeal or review for a decision to reject.

Registration itself creates rights against third parties (priority, notice), but that is a function of the Act, not these regulations. The regulations are purely procedural and financial. They impose duties but grant no new freedoms.

The regulations themselves contain no penalties for non‑compliance. There is no fine, imprisonment or infringement notice prescribed in the text. The only enforcement mechanism is the Registrar’s power under regulation 4(2) to reject a memorial that does not comply with the format requirements. Rejection is not a penalty in the criminal sense; it is an administrative refusal. The consequence is that the document will not be registered, and the applicant must prepare a compliant version and re‑present it, likely losing time and incurring additional costs (including the possibility of paying the registration fee again, if the original fee was not refunded).

Because the regulations are made under the Registration of Deeds Act 1856, any criminal offences for falsifying documents, obstructing the Registrar or similar would be found in that Act. The regulations do not create any offences. This is significant from a compliance burden perspective: the regulations operate purely as a gatekeeping mechanism, not as a penal code. The principal cost of non‑compliance is delay and the need to re‑prepare documents, not a monetary penalty.

However, there is an indirect penalty built into the fee schedule. If a person presents a memorial that is rejected, they may need to pay the registration fee a second time when they re‑submit. The regulations do not state whether the original fee is refunded or credited. The compilation table shows amendments to fees but no provision for refunds on rejected documents. This creates uncertainty: an applicant could pay $188.60, have the memorial rejected, and then have to pay another $188.60 to register the corrected version. In the absence of an express refund mechanism, the prudent applicant should assume the fee is forfeit. This is a significant cost for smaller users.

The enforcement of fee payment is not specified in the regulations, but presumably the Registrar will not accept a memorial without payment. The schedule sets the fees; payment is a precondition. There is no provision for late payment penalties or interest.

The withdrawal of a memorial under Division 3 item 2 requires payment of $188.60. If a person fails to pay that fee, the memorial presumably stays on the register. There is no enforcement mechanism mentioned in these regulations for compelling payment; the remedy would likely lie in the Registrar’s ability to refuse service.

Overall, the enforcement posture is low‑key. The main risk is transaction failure and cost, not criminal liability. This is consistent with a user‑pays service rather than a regulatory compliance regime. The compliance burden falls on the person presenting the document to get the format right. The Registrar does not have to prove intent or negligence; the duty is strict.

The regulations sit under the Registration of Deeds Act 1856 and derive their authority from that Act. The parent Act sets up the system and the office of the Registrar; these regulations fill in the operational details. Any conflict between the regulations and the Act would be resolved in favour of the Act, so practitioners must check the Act for matters not covered here, such as the legal effect of registration, priority rules, and the types of documents registrable.

The regulations interact with the Transfer of Land Act 1893 through the concept of a TLA application. A TLA application is an application to bring land under the Torrens system. When making such an application, the applicant may need to supply copies of old deeds as evidence. Regulation 5A and the fee exemptions for TLA‑related memorials and certifications are designed to reduce the cost of conversion. This creates a linkage: the regulations use the TLA definition to carve out a special fee regime, effectively subsidising the move from old system to Torrens title. The exemption applies to “the making of a TLA application”, which suggests it is available during the application process, not after.

The regulations also reference the Land Tax Assessment Act 1976 (repealed) and the Taxation Administration Act 2003 Part 6 Division 2. These provisions govern the withdrawal of certain tax‑related memorials. The fee of $188.60 is the same as a standard registration, indicating that the withdrawal is treated as an administrative service comparable to registration. Despite the repeal of the Land Tax Assessment Act, the regulations keep alive the possibility of withdrawing a memorial lodged under it, which is a sensible transitional measure.

The Reprints Act 1984 is mentioned in regulation 6 (which has been omitted). That Act governs the reprinting of legislation. Its mention indicates that the regulations are subject to standard reprint and compilation practices, providing a machinery link to WA’s legislative framework.

The regulations do not interact with the Electronic Transactions Act or any digital signature regime. The format requirements are entirely paper‑based, which is increasingly anachronistic. There is no provision for electronic lodgement, digital documents, or electronic signatures. This creates a practical tension with other property and conveyancing reforms that encourage electronic transactions. Users of the deeds registration system must maintain paper capabilities, which is an additional compliance burden in an era of digital conveyancing.

The regulations also interact with costs and property law generally. A person who registers a deed under the Act obtains priority. The regulations do not speak to that, but the fees and format requirements are a precondition. Failure to comply means the document is not registered, potentially losing priority. This is a high‑stakes interaction: the format rules are trivial in themselves but the consequence of non‑compliance can be loss of property rights. The regulations do not warn users of this risk.

The Fees and Charges Act or similar state fiscal statutes may govern the indexing of fees, but the regulations are silent on that, merely showing the history of amendments. The annual fee increases likely follow a cabinet or ministerial directive, but no cross‑reference is provided.

The regulations have been amended at least 20 times since they came into operation on 6 September 2004. The compilation table lists 22 amendment instruments, including the original. The pattern is striking: most amendments are annual fee adjustments, typically taking effect on 1 July each year. This is a cost‑of‑living or cost‑recovery indexation, but the regulations do not state the formula. The fee amounts have steadily risen from the original 2004 figures (which are not shown, as the schedule has been repeatedly substituted). The 2005 amendment increased fees, and then from 2007 onwards, almost every year saw a slight bump.

The 2025 amendments are notable for two reasons. First, SL 2025/85 would be the routine annual fee increase effective 1 July 2025. Second, SL 2025/178 (Planning and Lands Regulations Amendment Regulations 2025), effective 16 October 2025, introduced two key changes: it added the definition of “TLA application” to regulation 3, inserted new regulation 5A (waiving and refunding fees in relation to copies for TLA applications), and inserted the TLA‑related fee exemptions in Schedule 1 (Division 1 item 1(a), Division 3 item 1(a), and related notes). This represents a deliberate policy shift to facilitate conversions to Torrens title.

In 2012, Division 4 of the schedule was deleted. The original content of that division is not recoverable from this compilation. The 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 amendments were all part of the “Lands Regulations Amendment (Fees and Charges)” series, indicating that the government bundles fee updates for multiple land‑related regulations into omnibus instruments. This is efficient for the drafter but makes it harder for practitioners to track changes to this specific regulation.

There has been one reprint in 2008 and another in 2012. The regulations as presented are a compilation incorporating all amendments up to SL 2025/178. The amendment history shows that the core text has been stable since 2004; only the schedule and the TLA‑related provisions have been changed. Regulation 6 was omitted under the Reprints Act 1984, suggesting it was spent.

The pattern of annual fee increases is a form of stealth taxation: users bear the burden without any corresponding improvement in service. The cost of registration has roughly doubled or more over two decades, though accurate comparison would require the original schedule values. This is a compliance cost that is passed on to consumers of legal services.

The source text does not mention any cases, and we must not invent any. However, the regulations have likely been considered indirectly in disputes over registration priority or the validity of a registration. Because the regulations impose only format and fee conditions, litigation would rarely turn on them directly. It is more probable that a court would consider whether a document was properly registered under the Act, and that inquiry might include whether the regulations were complied with. A rejected memorial because of a 1 mm margin discrepancy could be challenged by way of judicial review, but no such case is recorded in the source.

The lack of internal review or appeal mechanisms in the regulations makes any dispute likely to go to the Supreme Court under administrative law. The Registrar’s discretion to reject or waive fees is a broad one, and the courts may imply procedural fairness obligations. For example, if the Registrar rejects a memorial without giving reasons, an applicant might seek certiorari. But again, no case is named.

Given that the parent Act is from 1856, the vast majority of case law would be about the Act, not these modern regulations. The regulations are a minor procedural layer. Litigation over the regulations themselves would be rare because the stakes are low (a $188 fee or a formatting issue). It is more cost‑effective to fix the document than to sue.

The compilation table shows no recorded litigation or court decisions. The regulations have not been subject to any formal review or challenge as far as the source shows. Users should not assume that the regulations are immune to challenge, especially on the ground that the paper format requirement is an unreasonable restraint on trade or an outmoded burden in the digital age. But no authority supports that view in the source.

The absence of litigation history means there are no judicial glosses on the meaning of “good quality paper”, “sufficient strength to bear photographic reproduction”, or “clearly and legibly handwritten”. Practitioners must apply a plain‑English meaning. In practice, the Registrar’s office likely provides guidance, but that guidance is not law.

Several traps lurk in these apparently simple regulations.

The binding margin is mandatory, not a guideline. Regulation 4(1)(c) requires a 51 mm margin on each page. This is a specific measurement. If a document is printed with a standard 25 mm margin, it is non‑compliant. The page size is also mandatory: 210 mm by 297 mm (A4). Any variance, even by millimetres, could be grounds for rejection. The requirement applies to every page, not just the first. Multi‑page documents need careful formatting.

Good quality paper approved by the Registrar is not defined. The Registrar has not published an approved list; the requirement effectively means paper that does not yellow, tear easily, or degrade over time. But what if the Registrar unilaterally decides a particular brand is not “good quality”? The lack of objective criteria gives the Registrar arbitrary power. A prudent user should ask the Registrar for a ruling before printing multiple copies.

The binding margin must be free of written, printed or typewritten matter. This means no text, no logos, no page numbers, no headers or footers in the margin. Many word processors automatically insert page numbers in the margin. The user must manually adjust margins. Failure to do so is a common oversight.

The fee waiver for TLA copies is discretionary. Regulation 5A says the Registrar “may” waive or refund the fee if satisfied it is appropriate. There are no criteria for what is appropriate. An applicant cannot rely on the waiver. The fee is $32.60 per copy, which can add up if many documents are required. The application can be made before the copy is supplied or after (refund), but the regulations do not set a time limit. If the Registrar later decides not to refund, the applicant has no recourse under these regulations.

The catch‑all fee for miscellaneous services (Division 3 item 3) is “as assessed by the Registrar, not exceeding actual cost”. The Registrar can charge up to the actual cost but may also choose to charge nothing. The user does not know the cost until the Registrar assesses it. This creates uncertainty for any service not explicitly listed. For example, if a user wants the Registrar to certify a copy of an ancient deed, the fee is not fixed; it depends on the Registrar’s assessment. Users should ask for a quote before incurring liability.

Withdrawal of a tax memorial costs $188.60, the same as a registration. This is a relatively high fee for what is essentially a deletion. It may be cheaper to simply leave the memorial on the register if it is doing no harm. Users should weigh the cost against the benefit of clearance.

No refund for rejected memorials. As noted, the regulations do not provide for a refund if a memorial is rejected. The fee is presumably forfeit. If the user suspects the document might be defective, they should seek pre‑approval of the format from the Registrar before paying. But again, the regulations do not require the Registrar to give pre‑clearance.

The paper requirements are outdated and costly. In an era of digital conveyancing, requiring paper with specific dimensions and a binding margin adds unnecessary compliance burden. Users must have the equipment and expertise to produce such documents. For a one‑off user, this is disproportionate. The cost of producing a compliant document (stationery, printing, checking) may exceed the registration fee itself.

Annual fee increases mean the fees in the published copy may soon be outdated. Users must check the current version before paying. The regulations do not include a transitional provision for documents prepared before a fee increase; presumably the fee in effect at the time of presentation applies.

Compliance with the Registration of Deeds Regulations 2004 turns on getting the paper right and paying the correct fee. There is no requirement for legal content other than that the document is a valid memorial under the Act. The steps are:

1. Determine the correct form. Identify whether the memorial relates to a TLA application. If it does, the registration fee is zero and the certification fee is zero. If it does not, the registration fee is $188.60. For copies, decide whether a waiver/refund will be sought under regulation 5A. If so, request the waiver at the time of ordering the copy, as there is no prescribed process but early application is prudent.

2. Prepare the paper. Obtain good quality A4 paper (210 mm x 297 mm) of at least standard office weight. Use a white or off‑white colour that will contrast well for microfilming or scanning. Set the page to portrait orientation. Set a left margin of at least 51 mm for the face sheet of the first page; for all subsequent pages, also set a 51 mm margin on the side that will be the binding edge (usually left). Ensure no text, numbers, logos, or annotations appear in that margin. Use black ink or dark toner. Ensure the text is legible at normal reading size; handwriting must be clear.

3. Check the reproduction requirement. All writing must be of sufficient strength to bear photographic reproduction. This means no faint printing, grey scale, watermarks or light colours. Black text on white is safe. Avoid reverse printing or coloured backgrounds.

4. Assemble and present. If the document is multiple pages, ensure each page has the 51 mm margin on the same side. Bind or fasten the pages securely (regulation 4 does not specify how, but a simple staple in the margin is acceptable; spiral binding may intrude into the margin). Present the document to the Registrar’s office along with a completed fee payment. The regulations do not require a covering letter, but including a reference to the TLA application if applicable will help the Registrar apply the correct fee.

5. Pay the fee. Calculate the fee using Schedule 1. The current registration fee (non‑TLA) is $188.60. For copies, $32.60 per copy. For certifications (non‑TLA), $77.00. For withdrawal of a tax memorial, $188.60. For any other service, ask the Registrar for an assessment before requesting the service. If the service is for a TLA application, point that out to obtain the zero fee.

6. Request waiver/refund for TLA copies (optional). After obtaining the copy (or before), ask the Registrar in writing to waive or refund the $32.60 fee. Provide evidence that the copy is for a TLA application. The Registrar may be satisfied quickly. If the request is refused, there is no appeal under these regulations; consider paying the fee and moving on.

7. Keep a copy of the compliant document. In case of rejection, the user can reproduce the same format. Also keep the receipt of fee payment for any potential refund claim.

8. Monitor fee changes. Check the WA legislation website before each lodgement. Fees are updated annually on 1 July. The compilation table shows recent amendments. Using an outdated fee schedule can result in rejection for underpayment.

9. Consider seeking pre‑clearance. If the format is borderline, ask the Registrar whether a draft would be accepted. The regulations do not require the Registrar to do this, but it is a practical risk management step.

The overarching burden is that the regulations treat the paper format with the same importance as the legal content. Compliance is strict; there is no substantial compliance doctrine. The cost of a minor error is potentially a lost fee and a delay of weeks. In practice, experienced conveyancers will have standard templates. For the occasional user, the safest course is to engage a professional who already knows the Registrar’s expectations.