192 SYDNEY LAW REVIEW
matrimonial laws of England and New South Wales have drifted wider apart.
The divergence goes deeper than a mere difference between the grounds for
divorce available in the two countries, though these are wide enough. The
N.S.W. Matrimonial Causes (Amendment) Act, 1958, has further widened
the gap by its new provisions as to alimony. But the English provisions as
to nullity go deeper. Until, for instance, the wilful refusal to consummate
the marriage was made a ground for a declaration of nullity, the fundamental
principle was recognised in England (as it is in this State) that whereas a
marriage is dissolved because of some act or omission on the part of the
respondent, it is only declared void on account of some defect in the ceremony
or for some pre-existing cause. The new provisions as to nullity in England
entirely abandon this ancient principle of the Ecclesiastical Courts by re-
cognising as a ground for a declaration of nullity certain acts of the respon-
dent committed after marriage. This abolishes the fundamental basis of the
distinction between a declaration of nullitv and a decree for dissolution. The
incautious student could here be badly led astray. Yet, with this warning to
local students, it can be said that Mr. Johnson has made a valuable contri-
bution to the literature on the subject; and his book is worth a place on
every lawyer's bookshelf both as interesting reading and as a useful reference
book. DAVID
N.
SELBY.*
An Englishman Looks at the Torrens System,
by Theodore
B.
F.
Ruoff. Sydney,
The Law Book Co. of Australasia Pty. Ltd., 1957, ix and 106 pp. (E1/5/-
in Australia).
Mr. Ruoff is an officer of the Land Registry in London, who in 1951
visited Australia under a Nuffield travelling fellowship. As a result he pub-
lished various articles which, with some further material, are collected in
this volume, for the occasion of the centenary of the introduction of the
Torrens System in South Australia in 1858.
Mr. Ruoff is not here concerned to examine the Torrens System in
detail. Rather his aim is to emphasise the essential principles of the system,
and to urge, firstly, adherence to these principles, and, secondly, their adap-
tion to modern conditions and the needs of people engaged in dealings with
land. In his view the system in any of its various local forms "succeeds or
fails according to the degree with which the local law and the local adminis-
tration accord, or do not accord, with certain fundamental principles", which
he calls (1) the mirror principle,
(2)
the curtain principle, and
(3)
the
insurance principle.
On the mirror principle the register book should reflect "all facts material
to an owner's title to land", and his title thus appearing should be indefeasible.
Dealing with breaches of this principle Mr. Ruoff concentrates most of his
attack on legislation creating statutory charges which are enforceable although
unregistered, such as those dealt with in
South-Eastern Drainage
Board
v.
Savings Bank of South Austra1ia;l
and he gives something less than due
regard to the extent, and the justification for, the exceptions to indefeasibility
contained in the various Torrens Acts themselves. Under the Australian Acts
the register book should be, with some exceptions, a mirror of the legal
interests affecting registered land; but the Acts are far from making the
title thus shown indefeasible. In South Australia itself Torren's original
*
B.A., LL.B. (Syd.), Challis Lecturer in Divorce and Domestic Relations, University
of
Sydney. Member of the
N.S.W.
Bar.
(1939)
62
C.L.R.
603.
