Adelaide Development Company Pty Ltd v Pohlner

Adelaide Development Company Pty Ltd (the appellant) appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appellant sought damages for breach of a contract for the sale of land, but the respondent (the purchaser) pleaded illegality. The core of the dispute concerned whether the contract was void due to non-compliance with the provisions of the *Town Planning and Development Act 1920* (S.A.) and the *Town Planning Act 1929* (S.A.).

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the contract of sale was illegal and void because it was entered into before the plan of subdivision was deposited in accordance with the *Town Planning and Development Act 1920*, and if so, whether section 22 of the *Town Planning Act 1929* operated retrospectively to validate the contract. Specifically, the court had to determine if the requirements of section 22 of the 1929 Act were met, particularly concerning the identity of the plan approved by "Letter Form A" and the plan subsequently deposited.

A majority of the High Court (Rich, Dixon, Evatt, and McTiernan JJ.) held that the provisions of the *Town Planning and Development Act 1920* had not been complied with, as the contract was entered into before the plan of subdivision was deposited. They further found that the appellant could not rely on section 22 of the *Town Planning Act 1929* because the "Letter Form A" approval related to a different plan (Exhibit A6) than the one ultimately deposited (Exhibit A7). The court reasoned that section 22 required the "said plan" to be the same plan that received approval in "Letter Form A," and that the variations between Exhibit A6 and Exhibit A7 were substantial and material, meaning they were not substantially identical. Consequently, the sale was deemed illegal and void. Starke J. dissented, finding that the approval and subsequent letter of 5th May 1927, in conjunction with the deposited plan, satisfied the validating provisions of section 22. The appeal was dismissed.