ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Contract-FormationPromise and acceptanceConsideration-Equitable interest
in land-Oral evidence--Statute of Frauds-Part performance. Practice-Supreme Court (S.A.)-Declaratory action-Action by legal owner of
land-Declaration against equitable ownership-Rules of Court 1913 (S.A.), May 27, 28, Order XXVI., 7. 5.
A number of properties were about to be sold by auction in one lot. On the day before the sale at a conversation at which the plaintiff, his daughter, who was the defendant, and her husband were present, the defendant's husband told the plaintiff that he was going to bid for one of the properties, whereupon the plaintiff asked the defendant's husband to leave it to him and not to oppose him, and said that he intended to purchase all the properties and that the defendant's husband should have the particular property he wanted, that he, the plaintiff, would arrange that the defendant should have that property by paying 5 per cent. on whatever he, the plaintiff, should give for it. that the defendant should have the right to take the property at the plaintiff's death at what it cost him, and that the defendant's husband should have possession as soon as the purchase was completed. The defendant and her husband then thanked the plaintiff. The following day the plaintiff at the auction sale bought all the properties in one lot, and the defendant's husband went into possession of the particular property. In an action between the plaintiff and the defendant the defendant relied on that conversation as establishing a contract between the plaintiff, the defendant and her husband to the effect
that in the event of the plaintiff purchasing the property the defendant's husband and the defendant should enter into and retain possession of the same during the life of the plaintiff and should pay to the plaintiff rent at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum upon the amount of the purchase money which should be paid by the plaintiff in respect thereof, and that the defendant should within a reasonable time after the death of the plaintiff have the right to purchase the property upon paying to the personal representatives of the plaintiff the amount of such purchase money.
Held, by Isaacs, Higgins, Gavan Duffy, Powers and Rich JJ., that the con- versation did not establish the alleged contract or any contract.
Held, also, that if any such contract as that alleged were established, the evidence did not show any part performance which would take the case out of the Statute of Frauds.
Per Isaacs and Rich JJ. (Higgins and Gavan Duffy JJ. doubting) Under Order XXVI., I. 5, of the Rules of Court 1913 (S.A.), which permits the Court to make binding declarations of right whether any consequential relief is or could be claimed or not, a legal owner of land may bring an action seeking a declaration that the defendant is not entitled to the present or future equitable ownership of the land which 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 McBride v Sandland
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
McBride v Sandland [1918] HCA 32
Case
[1918] HCA 32
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of South Australia concerning a dispute over land ownership. The appellant, the legal owner of the land, sought a declaration that the respondent, his daughter, had no present or future equitable interest in the property. The respondent claimed an equitable interest based on an alleged oral agreement made in 1895, which she contended was partly performed and therefore enforceable despite the Statute of Frauds.
The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the alleged oral agreement of 1895 constituted a binding contract, and if so, whether there had been sufficient part performance to take the agreement out of the Statute of Frauds. The Court also considered whether the action for a declaration of rights was properly brought under the relevant South Australian Rules of Court.
The Court, by majority, found that the conversation in 1895 did not establish the alleged contract or any contract at all. Even if such a contract had been established, the Court held that the evidence did not demonstrate any part performance that would satisfy the requirements of the Statute of Frauds. Specifically, the Court found that the possession of the land and any improvements made were not unequivocally referable to the alleged oral agreement, but rather to subsequent written agreements or other arrangements. The Court also noted that the respondent's own evidence indicated that she did not understand the arrangement to be a binding contract with obligatory rent payments.
Consequently, the High Court reversed the decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appeal was allowed, and the declarations made by the trial judge in favour of the respondent were set aside.