Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart NV v Administrator of Hungarian Property

The High Court of Australia heard appeals from the Supreme Court of New South Wales concerning actions of ejectment brought by the Rural Bank of New South Wales against tenants. The Bank sought possession of premises, but the tenants argued that the notices to quit did not comply with the requirements of the *Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1948-1949* (N.S.W.). The central dispute revolved around whether this Act, which governs the termination of tenancies and recovery of possession of prescribed premises, applied to the Rural Bank.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the *Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1948-1949* was binding on the Rural Bank, and consequently, whether the Bank was required to comply with its provisions regarding notices to quit and court jurisdiction. The Bank contended that the land it held was property of the Crown, and therefore, by virtue of common law immunity and section 5 of the Act, it was exempt from the Act's operation. The tenants argued that the Bank was a statutory corporation and not the Crown itself, and that the Act, as amended, did not exempt the Bank from its provisions.

The Court held that the *Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1948-1949* was binding on the Rural Bank. It reasoned that while section 19 of the *Government Savings Bank Amendment Act 1913-1945* declared certain property vested in the Bank to be the property of the Crown, this provision was intended to apply only to property vested in the Bank under specific vesting provisions of the principal and amending Acts, not to all property acquired by the Bank. Furthermore, the Court found that the Rural Bank, as a statutory corporation conducting general banking business, was not the Crown for the purposes of claiming immunity. Even if the land were held on behalf of the Government, the Bank, as the legal owner and lessor, was subject to the Act's requirements, as the rights being asserted were those of the corporation, not the Crown.

Consequently, the appeals were dismissed. The Court affirmed the decisions of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had found that the Bank's notices to quit were invalid and that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the ejectment actions due to the requirements of the *Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1948-1949*.