Australand Corporation (Qld) Pty Ltd v Johnson

The case of Australand Corporation (Qld) Pty Ltd v Johnson involves a dispute regarding the effect of the repeal of s 1073 of the Corporations Law on the right of avoidance of contracts under that section. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The respondents, Australand Corporation, sought to avoid a contract on the basis that it was voidable under s 1073 of the Corporations Law. However, the contract was entered into after the Corporations Law was repealed by the Managed Investments Act 1998 (Cth). The issue before the court was whether the appellants' right of avoidance survived the repeal of the Corporations Law and whether that right was an "accrued right" within the meaning of s 8 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth).

The court considered whether the repeal of s 1073 of the Corporations Law by the Managed Investments Act 1998 (Cth) operated to extinguish the appellants' right of avoidance. The court noted that, generally, a repeal of a statute does not operate to extinguish any accrued rights or liabilities which arose under the repealed statute. The court also considered whether the repealing legislation revealed an intention contrary to s 8 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth). The court held that the appellants' right of avoidance was not an accrued right within the meaning of s 8 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) because it had not crystallised at the time of the repeal. The court found that the repealing legislation did not reveal an intention contrary to s 8 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth).

The High Court of Australia dismissed the appeal and ordered that the appellants pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. The court found that the appellants' right of avoidance under s 1073 of the Corporations Law was extinguished by the repeal of that section by the Managed Investments Act 1998 (Cth) and that the appellants' right of avoidance was not an accrued right within the meaning of s 8 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth). The court held that the repealing legislation did not reveal an intention contrary to s 8 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth). The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.