Addison v Cain

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland concerning the validity of mortgages granted by a licensed victualler over her freehold property. The appellants, who held a lien over the land, sought a declaration that mortgages granted by the licensee, Mrs. Cain, to the City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd. were void. The core of the dispute was whether section 69 of the *Liquor Acts 1912-1926* (Q.) required the consent of the Licensing Court for such mortgages, even though the licensee was the owner of the freehold and the mortgages did not contain specific stipulations regarding liquor supplies.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the term "other property" in section 69 of the *Liquor Acts* extended to a freehold estate in licensed premises, and whether the section's application was limited to securities containing stipulations for exclusive dealings in liquor or goods. The Supreme Court had held that the freehold was excluded by the application of the *ejusdem generis* rule, interpreting the general words as being restricted to interests of a similar kind to those specifically mentioned (lease, licence, goodwill).

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, reasoned that the purpose of section 69 was to protect licensed victuallers from unfair and unreasonable terms in securities that could fetter their business operations. This protection was deemed equally necessary for a freeholder as for a leaseholder. The Court found that the words "interest, or other property" should be given their natural and widest meaning, and that the *ejusdem generis* rule should not be applied to restrict their scope in a way that would frustrate the legislative intent. The Court also determined that the section's application was not limited to securities containing specific stipulations for exclusive dealings, as its broader aim was to grant the Licensing Court general supervision over the terms and conditions of securities affecting licensed premises.

The High Court ordered that the appeal be allowed, the judgment of the Supreme Court be set aside, and a declaration be made that the bills of mortgage were unlawful and invalid insofar as they purported to give security over the freehold land. The respondent Society was ordered to pay the appellants' costs.