Attorney-General (NSW) v Hill and Halls Limited

The Attorney-General for New South Wales appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales concerning the priority of two liens granted over the same crop. The dispute arose between the Crown, which had advanced seed wheat to a farmer, Walter Patrick Evans, and Hill & Halls Limited, a general storekeeper who had also advanced money and goods to Evans. Both parties had entered into agreements with Evans in the form prescribed by the Liens on Crops and Wool and Stock Mortgages Act 1898 (NSW) to secure their respective advances by way of a lien on Evans' wheat crop. The Crown's agreement was dated 2 May 1921, and registered on 10 May 1921, while Hill & Halls Limited's agreement was dated 5 May 1921, and registered on 7 May 1921. The Crown contended that its lien had priority because it was executed earlier, whereas Hill & Halls Limited argued for priority based on its earlier registration.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the Registration of Deeds Act 1897 (NSW) applied to liens on crops registered under the Liens on Crops and Wool and Stock Mortgages Act 1898 (NSW), and if not, whether priority between two such liens was determined by the date of execution or the date of registration. Specifically, the Court had to determine the effect of section 4 of the Liens on Crops Act, which stipulated registration within thirty days of execution, and section 12 of the Registration of Deeds Act, which generally grants priority according to the date of registration.

The High Court held that liens on crops registered under section 4 of the Liens on Crops Act are not instruments to which section 12 of the Registration of Deeds Act applies. The Court reasoned that section 4 of the Liens on Crops Act, when read with the requirement of registration within thirty days, means that upon due registration, the lienee is considered to have had a valid security from the date of the agreement's execution. In the absence of any provision in the Liens on Crops Act that expressly or by necessary implication alters the general rule of priority according to the date of creation (qui prior est tempore potior est jure), the earlier executed lien takes precedence. The Court found that the Legislature had not made specific provision for the scenario of a borrower obtaining multiple liens on the same crop, and therefore, the principle of priority according to the date of execution must prevail.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, reversing the decision of the Supreme Court. The Court ordered that judgment be entered for the appellant (the Attorney-General) for the amount of the Crown's advance and accrued interest, along with costs.