Moore and Scroope v Western Australia

The case of *Moore and Scroope v Western Australia* involved a dispute between pastoral lessees and the State of Western Australia. The pastoral lessees claimed damages for breach of an implied covenant for quiet enjoyment, alleging that the State had unlawfully granted homestead and grazing leases over their land, leading to their dispossession by the new lessees. The matter was heard on appeal before the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether a covenant for quiet enjoyment was implied in the pastoral lease, and if so, whether the granting of subsequent homestead and grazing leases constituted a breach of that covenant. The court was also required to determine the extent of the Crown's power to dispose of Crown lands under existing and amended regulations, particularly in light of the Western Australian Constitution Act 1890, which transferred land management powers to the colonial government while preserving existing contracts and accrued rights.

The High Court, in its reasoning, considered that while a covenant for quiet enjoyment might be implied in a pastoral lease, its scope was limited by the express reservations within the lease and the governing regulations. The court found that the pastoral lease itself contained significant reservations allowing the Crown to sell or otherwise dispose of portions of the demised land, subject to claims for improvements and the provisions of the regulations. Crucially, the court held that the homestead and grazing leases were indeed "sales" within the meaning of these reservations, as they represented a form of conditional alienation of Crown lands. Furthermore, the court determined that the pastoral lessees' land remained "Crown lands" and thus subject to disposal under regulations in force at the time of the lease or any subsequent amendments or statutory enactments. The court reasoned that the Crown had not covenanted against altering regulations or introducing new forms of land alienation, and therefore, the granting of these new leases, even if they led to dispossession, was not a breach of contract.

The High Court varied the decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. While the Supreme Court had found the homestead and grazing leases to be void, the High Court concluded that they were validly granted under the Crown's reserved powers. Consequently, the pastoral lessees' claim for breach of covenant failed, and they were not entitled to damages from the State.