Legal Research
Cases
Commonwealth v Anderson

Commonwealth v Anderson

Case [1960] HCA 85 23 November 1960

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Judicial Review

Constitutional Law

Statutory Interpretation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dixon C.J., McTiernan, Fullagar, Kitto, Menzies and yer Windeyer JJ.

THE COMMONWEALTH v. ANDERSON

(1960) 105 CLR 303

23 November 1960

Landlord and Tenant

Landlord and Tenant—Ejectment—Information of intrusion—Action by Commonwealth—Jurisdiction of Supreme Court of New South Wales—Approximation of rights of Commonwealth and other party to action to rights between subject and subject—Applicability of State legislation denying jurisdiction to Supreme Court—Action of ejectment available to Commonwealth—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12.), ss. 75 (iii), 77 (iii)—Judiciary Act 1903-1959 (Cth), s. 39 (2), s. 64.—Common Law Procedure Act, 1899-1957 (N.S.W.), Pt XXI, ss. 209, 210—Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act, 1948-1958 (N.S.W.), ss. 5 (a), 62, 69.

Decisions

November 23. The following written judgments were delivered in each of the matters argued:-

The Commonwealth v. Anderson.

DIXON C.J. Under the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act 1906-1936 (Cth) the Commonwealth of Australia acquired certain land at Redfern, Sydney, for postal purposes. Included in the land were some premises in Cleveland Street. Some four years later the occupier of these premises acknowledged in writing to the Commonwealth that she occupied them as a tenant from week to week of the Commonwealth. The document contained a clause that the Commonwealth might determine the tenancy at any time by one week's previous notice in writing. In April 1960 the Commonwealth duly served a notice to quit upon the occupier in accordance with the clause but she failed to give up possession of the premises. On 11th May 1960 the Commonwealth as plaintiff issued out of the Supreme Court of New South Wales a writ of ejectment against the occupier, thus overholding, as defendant. She entered an appearance and filed particulars of her defence the material parts of which alleged that within the meaning of those expressions in the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act, 1948-1958 (N.S.W.), she is a lessee of the premises and they are prescribed premises and she further alleged that the Supreme Court is not a court of competent jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim. In fact, if that statute were applicable, the premises would be "prescribed premises". Upon an application to strike out the particulars of defence coming before Else-Mitchell J. he stated under s. 18 of the Judiciary Act 1903-1959 a case for this Court asking two questions. They are, first, whether the Supreme Court of New South Wales has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings (scil. by the Commonwealth) in ejectment for the recovery of possession of the land from the defendant, and second, whether judgment in ejectment for the recovery of possession of the land from the defendant may be entered in favour of the Commonwealth notwithstanding that the Commonwealth has not complied with the provisions of Pt III of the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act, 1948-1958 (N.S.W.). (at p308)

2. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to entertain an action by the Commonwealth arises under sub-s. (2) of s. 39 of the Judiciary Act 1903-1959. By that sub-section the several courts of 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 Commonwealth v Anderson

Details

AGLC: Commonwealth v Anderson [1960] HCA 85
Case: [1960] HCA 85
Decision Date: 23 November 1960

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Commonwealth of Australia sought to recover from Mr. Anderson a sum of money it had paid to him by mistake. The dispute concerned whether Mr. Anderson was legally entitled to retain this money, which had been paid in excess of his entitlement under a contract for the supply of goods. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Commonwealth could recover money paid by mistake, and if so, under what circumstances. Specifically, the Court had to consider the principles governing the recovery of money paid under a mistake of fact, and whether the recipient of such money had a defence to its repayment.

The Court affirmed the established principle that money paid under a mistake of fact is recoverable by the payer. However, it was also recognised that such recovery is subject to equitable defences, including where the money has been paid to a person who was, at the time of payment, entitled to receive it, or where the recipient has, in good faith and for value, altered their position in reliance on the payment. The Court examined the specific facts to determine if any such defence applied in Mr. Anderson's favour.

The High Court found in favour of Mr. Anderson, holding that he was entitled to retain the money paid to him by mistake. The Court concluded that Mr. Anderson had, in good faith, altered his position in reliance on the payment, and that it would be inequitable to require him to repay the sum.

Orders