Sec. 226 of the Crown Lands Consolidation Act 1913 provides in relation to (inter alia) leases from the Crown of irrigation farms that " (b) No lease or licence-other than a special lease-shall confer any right such land for other than grazing purposes." Sec. 273 (2), as amended by sec. 2 of the Crown Lands and Irrigation (Amendment) Act 1914, provides that " A lease of a holding within an irrigation area shall not be capable of being transferred except by way of mortgage until five years of the condition of residence have been performed unless the Commissioner " (for Water Con- servation and Irrigation) is satisfied that the lessee is compelled by sickness of himself or family or other adverse circumstances to leave the holding." Sec. 274 provides that "(2) Application for permission to transfer or other- wise deal with any such holding as aforesaid shall be made in the prescribed form-in the case of a homestead farm or Crown-lease--to the Minister, and in the case of a holding within an irrigation area, to the Commissioner, and such transfer or other dealing shall not be effected, or if effected shall not be valid, unless the consent thereto of the Minister or of the Commissioner, as the case may require, has been obtained.
(4) The provisions of this section shall not cease to apply after the issue of a perpetual lease grant, if any, and it shall be immaterial for the purposes of such provisions whether a transfer or other dealing or a devolution takes place before or after the passing of this Act; and no transfer or other dealing or conveyance or assignment in contravention of such provisions shall be valid for any purposes
The plaintiff, who was the lessee from the Crown of an irrigation farm, by an instrument in writing purported to sub-let it to the defendant for seven months for grazing purposes, the right being exclusive. By the instrument it was provided that the defendant should have the exclusive right to cultivate the land and remove the crop before the expiration of the term: that "this lease is subject to the written approval of the Commissiouer for Water Conservation and Irrigation thereto and the lessor will use her best endeavours to procure the same" and that, if the lessee were unable to use the farm by reason of some direction or order of the Commissioner, the agree-
Held, that having regard to the nature of the lease from the Crown, III the The defendant paid part of the rent and was put into possession of the farm, and thereafter, notwithstanding that…
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 Roach v Bickle
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Roach v Bickle [1915] HCA 80
Case
[1915] HCA 80
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of *Roach v Bickle* involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose from a purported sub-lease of an irrigation farm by the plaintiff, Jane Bickle, to the defendant, James Roach. Bickle, the Crown lessee, sought damages for trespass and conversion of a crop of oats harvested by Roach. Roach defended the action by asserting a valid sub-lease, which would have granted him possession and the right to the crop.
The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the sub-lease was valid and, if not, what were the consequences for the parties' rights and obligations. Specifically, the court had to determine the effect of sections 226 and 274 of the *Crown Lands Consolidation Act 1913* (N.S.W.), as amended, on the validity of a sub-lease of an irrigation farm where the required consent of the Commissioner for Water Conservation and Irrigation had not been obtained. The court also considered whether the agreement constituted a binding lease or merely an inchoate arrangement subject to a condition precedent.
The High Court, affirming the majority decision of the Supreme Court, held that the sub-lease was void. The court reasoned that section 274(2) of the *Crown Lands Consolidation Act 1913* mandated that any dealing with a holding within an irrigation area, including a sub-lease, was invalid unless the consent of the Commissioner was obtained. The court found that the sub-lease, which purported to grant rights beyond mere grazing and was explicitly made subject to the Commissioner's written approval, never became a binding agreement because this essential condition precedent was not fulfilled. Consequently, no legal interest in the land was transferred to the defendant, and the plaintiff's claim for trespass and conversion was upheld.
The appeal was dismissed with costs. The court also noted that the defendant's application to add a plea of set-off was not considered as the respondent had agreed to allow the sum of £61, paid by the defendant, to be deducted from the damages awarded.