The Messiah

Posted on Dec 18, 2015 | 0 comments


martin place christmas treeAs the 2015 court term draws to a close I was looking for a Christmas theme to blog about. With the able assistance (again) of Luke Fermanis of my chambers I was directed to paragraph 4 of Adamson J’s judgment in Murphy v Zeitouneh [2015] NSWSC 876 :

The pleading is dense and runs for a number of pages. However, its substance can be summarised as follows. At some time before the Property was transferred to the second defendant, it was used as a church. The plaintiff claims to be entitled to that church by reason of an alleged wager. The plaintiff also alleges that, because the Property was used as a church, title to the Property lies with the Messiah. In the amended statement of claim, the plaintiff claims to be the Messiah and therefore to be entitled to the Property. He also relies on admissions, said to have been made by the defendants, that he is the Messiah, and that they do not have title to the Property.

Counsel for the defendant tendered a title search for the property (showing his client as registered proprietor) and submitted that being the messiah (which was not admitted), was not a known exception to the principles of indefeasibility….the proceedings were dismissed.

Thank you also to Bettina Cutler for her photo of the Martin Place christmas tree.

Share Button

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.