Norton v Angus

The appellant, Norton, entered into a contract to sell two perpetual lease selections to the respondent, Angus. Norton was the holder of one selection, and his wife held the other. The total area of the two selections exceeded the maximum area permitted to be held by one person in that district under the Queensland Land Acts. Angus paid a deposit of £500 and took possession of the land, but subsequently refused to complete the purchase. Norton sued for specific performance of the contract, with Angus counterclaiming for the return of his deposit and compensation for improvements.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the contract was rendered illegal by the provisions of the Land Acts, and if not, whether specific performance should be granted or if damages should be awarded in lieu thereof. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the contract's provision for "a transfer" and the combined area of the selections, exceeding the statutory limit for a single holder, invalidated the agreement. The Court also considered the discretion to award damages in place of specific performance, particularly in light of the practical difficulties in completing the transfer legally.

A majority of the High Court (Knox C.J., Isaacs and Starke JJ.) held that the contract was not illegal. They reasoned that the contract could be legally performed by transferring the selections to two separate individuals, as permitted by the Land Acts, and that the provision for "a transfer" did not necessitate a single instrument for both selections. Therefore, the contract was enforceable. However, these judges, in their discretion, declined to order specific performance due to the potential hardship and practical difficulties Angus would face in finding a suitable transferee for one of the selections without incurring significant risk or financial loss. Instead, they ordered an inquiry into damages at Norton's risk. Higgins and Gavan Duffy JJ. dissented, finding that specific performance should have been ordered as the contract was not illegal and the purchaser had failed to establish grounds for refusing specific performance.