Langman v Handover

The appellant, Langman, appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose from a suit brought in equity by Langman against Handover, alleging that Handover, while an unregistered money-lender, had made advances to Langman and obtained securities, including stock mortgages and a crop lien. Langman sought declarations that these were money-lending transactions and that the securities were void. Handover demurred to the statement of claim.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the statement of claim disclosed a right to equitable relief, and if so, whether it was demurrable for failing to include an offer to repay the money advanced. The Supreme Court's Full Court had reversed the decision of the primary judge, finding that the statement of claim disclosed no equity because it lacked an offer to do equity by repaying the borrowed money.

The High Court dismissed the appeal. It reasoned that the statement of claim, as framed, sought only a declaration of a legal right and did not establish an equity. Crucially, it contained no offer to repay the advances made by Handover, which is a prerequisite for equitable relief in such circumstances. The Court followed the principle established in *David Jones Ltd. v. Leventhal* and approved of the decision in *Lodge v. National Union Investment Co.*, holding that a borrower seeking equitable relief from a transaction void under the Money-lenders and Infants Loans Act must offer to do equity by restoring the parties to their original positions.

The High Court affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, dismissing the appeal.