Federal Court of Australia

Clark v Registrar of Titles [2026] FCA 1203

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The applicant's interlocutory application dated 17 August 2026 is dismissed.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

COLVIN J:

1    Ms Susan Clark commenced proceedings in this Court against the Registrar of Titles. She sought an injunction restraining the Registrar from transferring land in her name. The affidavit in support of the application referred to a mortgage on the property to which the Commonwealth Bank of Australia was a party. The affidavit stated that Ms Clark sought a finding that the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth) 'affects the mortgage and the Registrar of Landgate be injuncted from transferring the land'. The Registrar gave notice that they would abide by the outcome in the proceedings.

2    At the first case management hearing, Ms Clark indicated that she intended to proceed only against the Registrar. I formed the view that on the materials before the Court, the Commonwealth Bank was a necessary party. I made orders joining the Commonwealth Bank as the second respondent and for the application to be served on the Commonwealth Bank. The case management hearing was adjourned for those steps to be taken.

3    Ms Clark then filed an interlocutory application seeking various orders that would remove the Commonwealth Bank as a party or would limit the participation of the Commonwealth Bank in the proceedings. The interlocutory application was made returnable at the same time as the case management hearing. The Commonwealth Bank was represented at that hearing.

4    Previous proceedings by Ms Clark against the Commonwealth Bank had been dismissed on a summary basis: Clark v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2026] FCA 940.

5    An issue arose as to whether the Commonwealth Bank had received notice of the interlocutory application. In the result, it was of no moment. The Bank opposed the application on the basis that it was a necessary party to any application which sought to prevent a dealing by the Commonwealth Bank in the exercise of its rights as mortgagee. In proceedings in the Supreme Court of Western Australia brought against Shada Pty Ltd and Ms Clark, orders were made that judgment be entered in favour of the Commonwealth Bank against Ms Clark requiring payment to the Bank of almost $550,000 plus interest at the rate specified in the mortgage on the property the subject of the present proceedings: Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Shada Pty Ltd [2025] WASC 200 (Gething J) and Clark v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2025] WASCA 127 (Mitchell and Vaughan JJA).

6    After hearing submissions from Ms Clark, I gave the following reasons for dismissing the interlocutory application.

7    The respondent has not received notice of, or at least counsel appearing today has not received notice of the interlocutory application. However, from what has transpired today, the respondent is aware of its terms. The interlocutory application seeks to vary the position in relation to the Commonwealth Bank being the second respondent.

8    I am not persuaded that any of the orders sought on the interlocutory application should be made. It is plain that the Commonwealth Bank is a necessary party to these proceedings. The nature of the relief that is sought would direct the Registrar of Titles to adopt a position which would mean that the Commonwealth Bank was unable to exercise rights under a mortgage which it has registered against the property, so therefore it is a necessary and proper party, and for those reasons I dismiss the interlocutory application.

Associate:

Dated:    21 August 2026