Stucoid Pty Ltd v Stadiums Pty Ltd - [1960] HCA 41

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dixon C.J., Menzies and Windeyer JJ.

STUCOID PTY. LTD. v. STADIUMS PTY. LTD.

(1960) 107 CLR 521

4 July 1960

Contractors' and Workman's Liens (Q.)

Contractors' and Workmen's Liens (Q.)—Notice of claim of lien or charge—Time for giving—Time for taking proceedings to enforce claim—The Contractors' and Workmen's Liens Acts, 1906 to 1921 (Q.), ss. 9, 10, 19.

Decision

1962, February 12.
DIXON C.J. delivered the judgment of the Court:-
These are appeals from two orders of Philp J. made on 18th December 1959. The orders were made under the provisions of The Contractors' and Workmen's Lien Acts, 1906 to 1921 (Q.). One order dismissed an application by originating summons of a contractor for the enforcement of a lien and a charge claimed under the Act. The other order directed the cancellation of the lien which had been lodged at the office of the Registrar of Titles as an encumbrance on the title of the building owner. The order also cancelled this registration of the lien. (at p523)

2. Section 4 of the Act provides that a contractor or sub-contractor or workman who does or procures to be done any work upon or in connexion with any land or any building or other structure or permanent improvement upon land is entitled to a lien upon the whole interest of the employer in that land or upon the moneys payable to the contractor or sub-contractor as the case may require for a contract price of or wages for his work, subject to certain conditions and limitations which are not material to our decision. (at p523)

3. Section 6 provides that a workman is entitled to a charge for the moneys due to him for his work upon any money payable to the contractor or sub-contractor by whom he is employed, and the sub-contractor is entitled to a charge for the money due to him under his contract upon any money payable to the contractor or sub-contractor with or under whom he has contracted. (at p523)

4. The lien mentioned in s. 4 is, in its relation to the moneys payable to the contractor or sub-contractor, apparently the same thing as the charge referred to in s. 6. The lien in respect of land is another thing. (at p524)

5. It has been said that ss. 4 and 6 create the lien and the charge and that the machinery of the Act is to enforce them and otherwise deal with their operation and effect. But be that as it may their actual effectiveness depends on the steps taken to enforce them. (at p524)

6. Under s. 9 a notice of claim to a lien must be given within a limited time, and under s. 10 a notice within the same limites of time must be given of a claim to a charge. (at p524)

7. Under s. 19 proceedings must be commenced to enforce the lien or charge within a further limit of time; otherwise the lien and 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Stucoid Pty Ltd v Stadiums Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1960] HCA 41
Decision Date: 4 July 1960

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stucoid Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute concerned the interpretation of a lease agreement between Stucoid Pty Ltd and Stadiums Pty Ltd (the respondent) concerning premises at the Melbourne Cricket Ground. The primary issue was whether the respondent was entitled to recover from the applicant certain outgoings and charges under the lease.

The High Court was required to determine whether the Supreme Court had erred in its construction of clause 4(a) of the lease agreement. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the phrase "all rates, taxes, charges, assessments and outgoings whatsoever" extended to include a levy imposed by the Melbourne Cricket Club for the purpose of funding capital works and improvements to the ground. The applicant contended that this levy was not a "rate, tax, charge, assessment or outgoing" in the ordinary sense of those terms as they applied to a tenant's obligations under a lease.

The High Court, in dismissing the application for leave to appeal, held that the Supreme Court had correctly interpreted the lease. The court reasoned that the language of clause 4(a) was broad and intended to cover all expenses incurred by the landlord in relation to the premises, beyond the basic rent. The levy, being a compulsory charge imposed by the owner of the land for the benefit of the entire ground, was considered an outgoing in connection with the premises, and therefore fell within the scope of the clause. The court emphasised the importance of giving effect to the plain meaning of the words used in the lease, particularly where the wording was comprehensive.

Orders