Legal Research
Cases
Amad v Grant

Amad v Grant

Case [1947] HCA 9 8 May 1947

Contract Formation

Statutory Construction

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Property Law

Statutory Interpretation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

74 CLR 327

COMPLAINANT, GROSGLIK GRANT

RESPONDENT. COMPLAINANT, Landlord and Tenant-Tenancy-Termination-Notice to quit-Periodic tenancy-

Notice to determine otherwise than at end of period-Validity-Agreement to let premises-Nature of tenancy-Letting for indefinite term-Tenancy from month to month-Premises let at weekly rent, payable monthly in advance-Tenancy to continue for three years at least and not to cease until a month's notice given- Landlord and Tenant Act 1928 (Vict.) (No. 3710), Part V.-National - Security (Landlord and Tenant) Regulations (S.R. 1945 No. 97-1946 No. 98), reg. 62.

To determine a periodic tenancy, whether it is yearly, quarterly, monthly or weekly, a notice to quit must (unless the parties have otherwise agreed) take effect at the end of a period of the tenancy.

Lemon v. Lardeur, (1946) 1 K.B. 613, followed. An agreement in writing provided that premises were let "at the weekly rent of £2 2s. 6d. payable in advance such tenancy to commence on 17th May 1937 " and not cease

until one month's notice in writing shall have been given

and such tenancy to continue for the term of three years at the least." The agreement also provided that "the rent is to be paid

monthly in advance the first of such payments amounting to £9 4s. 2d. to be paid on the signing of the agreement "and hereafter such similar amounts on the 17th day of each month following."

74 CLR 328

Held, by Latham C.J., Rich and Williams JJ. (Dixon and McTiernan JJ. dissenting), that after the first three years the tenancy was from month to month and that the words of the agreement referring to one month's notice did not constitute an agreement that the tenancy might be determined by notice at a time other than the end of a monthly period.

Held, further, by Latham C.J., Rich, McTiernan and Williams JJ. (Dixon J. expressing no opinion) that reg. 62 of the National Security (Landlord and Tenant) Regulations will not validate a notice to quit which would be invalid under the law apart from the regulations.

APPEALS from a Court of Petty Sessions of Victoria.

In 1941 Alfred George Alexander Grant purchased premises at 353 Exhibition Street, Melbourne, the ground floor of which he occupied for the purposes of his business. At the time of the purchase Wadee Haikel Amad and David Grosglik were in possession of the first and second floors respectively as tenants of the previous owners. They remained in possession and paid rent monthly to Grant.

Amad's Case.-Amad's tenancy of the first floor was created by an agreement in writing dated 17th May 1937 whereby the then owners agreed to let the floor to him " at the weekly rent of £2 2s. 6d. payable in advance such tenancy to commence on the 17th day of May 1937 and not cease (except as hereinafter provided) until one month's notice in writing shall have been given by either party to the other and such tenancy to continue for the term of three years at least. 1. The…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Amad v Grant

Details

AGLC: Amad v Grant [1947] HCA 9
Case: [1947] HCA 9
Decision Date: 8 May 1947

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Amad v Grant* concerned appeals to the High Court of Australia from decisions of a Victorian magistrate who had ordered the eviction of two tenants, Amad and Grosglik. The landlord, Grant, had issued notices to quit, and the tenants argued that these notices were invalid. The appeals were brought on the basis that the magistrate's decisions involved Federal jurisdiction due to the application of the National Security (Landlord and Tenant) Regulations.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether, in the case of a periodic tenancy, a notice to quit must expire at the end of a period of that tenancy, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise. A secondary issue concerned the application of regulation 62 of the National Security (Landlord and Tenant) Regulations, specifically whether it could validate a notice to quit that would otherwise be invalid under general law.

A majority of the High Court, comprising Latham C.J., Rich and Williams JJ., held that for any periodic tenancy, including monthly and weekly tenancies, a notice to quit must, by general law, expire at the end of a period of the tenancy. This principle was derived from English case law, notably *Lemon v. Lardeur*, which the majority adopted. In Amad's case, the written agreement established a monthly tenancy after an initial three-year term, and the notice to quit did not expire at the end of a monthly period, rendering it invalid. In Grosglik's case, there was insufficient evidence to establish the commencement date of his monthly tenancy, meaning the landlord could not prove the notice expired at the end of a tenancy period, thus invalidating it. The majority also found that regulation 62 did not validate notices that were invalid under general law. Dixon and McTiernan JJ. dissented.

The Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the magistrate's orders for possession. This meant that the tenants were not required to vacate the premises based on the notices that had been issued. The landlord would need to issue new, valid notices to quit if they wished to pursue eviction.

Orders