in land-Agreement subject to provision for discharge-Land Act 1910 (Q.) (1 Geo. v. No. 15), sec. 94-Leases to Aliens Restriction Act 1912 (Q.) (2 Geo. V. No. 31), secs. 2, 3-Sugar Works Act 1911 (Q.) (2 Geo. v. No. 8), sec. 32 - Regulation of 28th October 1915. Practice-Supreme Court of Queensland-Conditions precedent-Action for specific

performance-Readiness and willingness-Appeal-Jurisdiction of Full Court to draw inferences of fact not inconsistent with findings of jury-Finding of jury set aside-Rules of the Supreme Court 1900 (Q.), Order XXII., rr. 12, 14; Order LXX., mr. 11, 26.

37 CLR 322

Held, by Rich and Starke JJ. (Higgins J. dissenting), that sec. 3 of the Leases to Aliens Restriction Act of 1912 (Q.) applies to land selected and held of the Crown under the Land Act of 1910 (Q.).

One of the appellants, who was the lessee from the Crown of certain land under the Land Act of 1910, offered to grant to the respondents, who were then aliens, a sub-lease in a specified form of the land, subject to a proviso that the respondents should within a certain time qualify under sec. 94 of that Act either by naturalization or obtaining a certificate of passing the dictation test and that if the respondents failed to so qualify the undertaking should be null and void. The offer was accepted by the respondents.

Held, by Rich and Starke JJ. (Higgins J. dissenting), that the agreement operated as an agreement to give an interest in a parcel of land for a term of years subject to a provision for its discharge in the event of the failure of the respondents to secure naturalization or to pass the dictation test within the time limited, and was rendered illegal by sec. 3 of the Leases to Aliens Restriction Act of 1912 (Q.).

Per Higgins J. :-The Land Act of 1910 is a special Act applicable to Crown lands only-like a code for Crown lands; and the Leases to Aliens Restriction Act of 1911 is a general Act which does not affect the Act of 1910. Semble even if the latter Act did affect Crown lands, it merely invalidates agreements made with aliens under which before the alienage ceases there is to be some

Per Higgins J. Under Order XXII.,. 12 and 14, of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1900 (Q.), where in an action for specific performance of a contract the defendant has not by his defence denied the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform the contract, there is no issue as to such readiness and willingness, and therefore the fact that the jury has not found that the plaintiff was SO ready and willing does not prevent the plaintiff from succeeding

Per Starke J.: Under Order LXX., r. 11, of the Rules of the Supreme Court…

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 Baird v Magripilis

Details

AGLC: Baird v Magripilis [1925] HCA 49
Case: [1925] HCA 49
Decision Date: 17 December 1925

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered a dispute concerning a lease of Crown land in Queensland. The appellant, Baird, had entered into an agreement with the respondent, Magripilis, for the lease of certain land. The central issue was whether this agreement, which purported to create a present interest in the land, was rendered illegal by legislation restricting leases to aliens.

The court was required to determine the validity of the lease agreement in light of the *Land Act 1910* (Qld), the *Leases to Aliens Restriction Act 1912* (Qld), and a relevant regulation. Specifically, the court had to ascertain whether the agreement constituted a lease or a contract for a future lease, and whether it offended the statutory prohibitions against leasing Crown land to aliens. Furthermore, the court considered whether the respondent had satisfied the condition precedent of readiness and willingness to perform the contract, a matter relevant to an action for specific performance.

The court reasoned that the agreement created a present, not a future, interest in the land, and therefore fell within the ambit of the *Leases to Aliens Restriction Act 1912*. This Act prohibited the granting of leases of Crown lands to aliens without the consent of the Governor in Council. As no such consent had been obtained, the agreement was deemed illegal and void. The court also addressed procedural matters concerning the Supreme Court's power to draw inferences of fact on appeal, particularly where a jury's finding had been set aside.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order for specific performance. The court found the lease agreement to be illegal and unenforceable due to non-compliance with the statutory restrictions on leasing Crown land to aliens.

Orders