Craine v Australian Deposit and Mortgage Bank Limited

The Australian Deposit and Mortgage Bank Limited (the plaintiff) brought an action in the Supreme Court of Victoria seeking possession of a block of land. The defendant, Thomas Henry Craine, claimed possession of the land based on adverse possession for over fifteen years. The plaintiff held the registered title to the land, which had been mortgaged to them by the registered proprietor, Andrew Harper. The core of the dispute revolved around the precise timing of a fence erected by the defendant on the land. Madden C.J. found in favour of the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed to the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the defendant had established possession of the land for the requisite fifteen-year period prior to the plaintiff's entry, and consequently, whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession. This determination hinged entirely on the factual question of when the fence enclosing the land was erected. The defendant contended the fence was erected before December 1891, while the plaintiff argued it was erected later.

Griffith C.J. and Isaacs J., forming the majority, held that the indisputable evidence established that the fence was erected before the critical date of December 1891. They reasoned that the evidence presented by the defendant's witnesses, which was supported by contemporaneous events and documents, was more reliable than the testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses. The majority found that the Supreme Court Judge had given undue weight to testimony that, upon closer analysis, was inconsistent with established facts or probabilities, citing the principle that an appellate court may reverse findings of fact based on such testimony. Barton J. dissented, finding that the trial judge's assessment of the witnesses' credibility, particularly concerning the timing of the fence erection and the defendant's possession, should not be disturbed.

The High Court, by majority decision, reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the Supreme Court to enter judgment for the defendant for possession of the land, except for a strip of frontage approximately 2 feet 6 inches wide, to which the defendant had not acquired title.