Vendor and Purchaser—Irrigation farm lease—Transfer—Prohibited without consent of statutory body—Implied term—Land held by bare trustee for vendor—Obligations of trustee—Entry into possession by purchaser—Effect—Crown Lands Consolidation Act, 1913 (N.S.W.), as amended, s. 145A*.
Decisions
1964, February 25. The following written judgments were delivered:- McTIERNAN AND TAYLOR JJ. We are of the opinion that subject to some variation of the order made in the Supreme Court this appeal should be dismissed. The basis upon which the order below was made was that in the events which happened the appellant became a trustee of the farm land in question upon trust, during the subsistence of the contract of 6th July 1931, to permit the respondent company to be and remain in possession thereof until the Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission should consent to a transfer to the company and, thereafter, upon trust for the company absolutely. "If the contract should go off through refusal of consent to the transfer the trust" would, according to the learned judge of the first instance, "come to an end". But whether his Honour ultimately thought that the appellant became a trustee of the land for the company by reason of the continued subsistence of the contract or by reason of the declaration of trust subsequently executed on 14th December 1932 does not clearly appear. We entirely agree with his observation that there was implicit in the contract - which evidenced the sale of a number of parcels of land most of which were not subject to the provisions of the Crown Lands Consolidation Act, 1913 (N.S.W.) and which provided a single consideration for the sale - a condition that, in so far as it related to the sale of the farm land in question, it was subject to the consent of the Commission being obtained and that, this being so, it was ineffective to constitute the appellant a trustee of the land for the company notwithstanding the fact that the obligation to provide the specified consideration was fully satisfied. But his Honour proceeded: "As he was only a bare trustee of the land, the defendant could not have given to the company a greater interest than that to which it was entitled under the contract of sale, and it is apparent from the terms of the deed that it was neither his intention, nor the intention of the company, that he should do so. Under the contract, the company was entitled to immediate possession of the land and would become absolutely entitled when the consent of the Commission should be given to the transfer. The effect of the deed, therefore, was to constitute the defendant a trustee of the farm upon trust, during the subsistence of the contract, to permit the company to be and remain in possession thereof until the Commission should consent to the transfer of the farm to 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 McWilliam v McWilliams Wines Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
McWilliam v McWilliams Wines Pty Ltd [1964] HCA 6
Case
[1964] HCA 6
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
McWilliam and McWilliams Wines Pty Ltd were parties to litigation before the High Court of Australia concerning the use of the name "McWilliam's" in relation to wine. The dispute centred on whether the defendant's use of this name infringed the plaintiff's trade mark rights and constituted passing off.
The High Court was required to determine whether the defendant's adoption and use of the name "McWilliam's" for its wines was likely to deceive or cause confusion among the public as to the origin of the goods, thereby infringing the plaintiff's registered trade mark and constituting the tort of passing off. A key issue was the extent to which the plaintiff had established a reputation and goodwill in the name "McWilliam's" in relation to wine.
The Court considered the evidence of the parties' respective histories and marketing practices. It applied the principles of trade mark law and the law of passing off, focusing on the likelihood of deception or confusion in the marketplace. The judges analysed the distinctiveness of the name and the potential for consumers to associate the defendant's wines with the plaintiff's established business.
The High Court found in favour of the plaintiff, ordering that the defendant be restrained from using the name "McWilliam's" in connection with the sale of wine.