Worth Richard: Property Law Bill — Third Reading 
Worth Richard: Property Law Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12118] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute for a few moments to this debate on the Property Law Bill. It was wholly appropriate that Mr Finlayson launched a vicious attack on the indolence of the Labour members. But I do not want to dwell on that. I would just say that it is an excellent outcome that we have a reinvigorated Law Commission with only the occasional Homeric nod—I think most recently of the Sentencing Council and the work that was done there and unfortunately taken up by this Parliament. 
I am sure that if Justice Blanchard were in this Chamber today he would be delighted to see now the fruition of his work that extended over a substantial period and was followed by a very substantial delay before the Government introduced this legislation and with the unstinting support of National as Mr Finlayson has said advanced it very much to the near-final stage. For what lies beyond this? It is little more than the Royal assent and then the passage of this important legislation into law. 
It is not easy legislation. There is no doubt about that. It was a substantial stumbling block for many students in the course of their careers at the universities when after a heavy night of partying they were forced to endure the trickiness and complexity of property law. Some did well; others perhaps did less well. I would like to start with the comment that the Law Commission made in its preliminary paper  
The Property Law Act 1952 
 and this observation on the nature of the then property law legislation: “The Property Law Act 1952 contains a collection of miscellaneous rules relating to property of all kinds including land. It is not a code more a repository for legislative supplements to or corrections of judge-made law. Where it has been thought that the rules of common law or equity had fallen short of producing a sensible solution to a problem concerning the creation disposition or control of property interests legislative attention has been given to the problem by way of a section in the Property Law Act or one of its predecessors.” And so it was that Justice Blanchard commenced work on drafting a model statute which the Government substantially plagiarised and today this current legislation reflects. 
I would say in the short time I have because I am conscious that others want to take a call before Parliament adjourns for the evening that one of the most important objectives of the bill is to set out rules of property law accessibly and in a manner that allowing for the subject matter can be readily understood. Some of the provisions of the 1952 Act as I have made comment on earlier occasions have survived from as long ago as the Conveyancing Ordinance 1842 without redrafting. So major work has been required here. I could make comment on relationships with other Acts but I think I am more drawn to the comments that Mr Finlayson made in connection with the imperial legislation. The bill repeals just about all of the imperial enactments relating to property which were preserved in the first schedule to the Imperial Laws Application Act. Some of those provisions continued for a substantial period of time and had real thrust and real impact. I think of sections 83 and 86 of the Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774 and section 6 of the Statute of Frauds Amendment Act 1828 which we grew to know and love as Lord Tenterden’s Act. So the new Act addresses in modern language such of these provisions as require continuing attention. 
May I just close though in noting that there are substantial issues of sweeping change in the bill such as assignment of things in action the warning before the exercise of mortgagees’ powers the application of proceeds of mortgagee sales the continuing liability of the assignor of a lease and agreements for sale and purchase. But perhaps most important there is some specific retention of the rule in  
Hopkinson v Rolt 
. Mr Power and I were talking about the significance of the rule in  
Hopkinson v Rolt 
 before this debate occurred. 
Simon Power 
: Most Tuesdays. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: He says that most Tuesdays it is the topic of discussion. 
 I certainly hope in the future that those discussions on that important rule will not cease. In any event under that rule any advances made by a prior mortgagee after notice of the existence of a subsequent mortgage rank behind the subsequent mortgage in priority—except in circumstances where the first mortgagee was compelled to make those further advances. There may have been a case to abolish entirely the rule in  
Hopkinson v Rolt 
. It is interesting that the rule in America has been seen as appropriate in regard to securities in relation to land and has been maintained in that jurisdiction. I think that it was a wise move by the Government to preserve the rule and set it out in statutory form but to limit it only to land and registered ships—although ships have a Torrens style of title system under the Ship Registration Act 1992. 
So here we are poised to enact this important legislation with all the substantial benefits that will flow to the legal community and those it serves.