Thomas v The Crown - [1904] HCA 29

THE CROWN

RESPONDENT PLAINTIFF,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN New trial--Surprise-Statute of Frands--Part-performance-Ratification-Agree-

ment for lease by subordinate officer of Government.

Acts relied on as part-performance to take a case out of the Statute of Frauds must be unequivocally referable to the alleged agreement.

The implication of a tenancy from year to year from the acceptance of rent by a landlord from a tenant holding over after the expiration of his tenancy may be excluded by the other circumstances of the case.

A new trial will not be granted on the ground of surprise if the evidence alleged to be in the nature of a surprise is immaterial.

The defendant was the lessee of the Perth City Markets from the Crown for a period of three years, with a right of extension for a further period of one year and fourteen days. The defendant alleged that before the expira- tion of the three years it was verbally agreed between him and one Cowen (then Director of Agriculture) that in consideration of defendant allowing certain structural alterations in the markets to be made, and paying, in addition to the rent, the sum of six per cent. upon the outlay, he was to have a further lease of seven years. Evidence was given of a conversation between defendant and the Minister, after the death of Cowen in which the terms of the agreement with Cowen were alleged to have been stated to the Minister. After this conversation the defendant wrote to the Minister asking for favourable consideration of the agreement, but the Minister refused to confirm it. The defendant remained in possession after the three years had expired until the expiration of the year and fourteen days, and paid interest at 6 per cent. on the value of certain improvements, but it appeared that he had agreed in writing to do so before making the alleged agreement with Cowen. The Crown then brought this action for recovery of possession of the land. The defendant set up the verbal agreement with Cowen, ratification by the Minister, and part-performance. The jury found that the alleged agreement

2 CLR 128

was made in fact, and the Judge held that the acceptance of the rent and interest amounted to ratification of the agreement and also to part-perform- ance. The Full Court granted a new trial on the ground of surprise in the admission of the evidence of the conversation with the Minister.

Held, 1st.-That the agreement between the defendant and Cowen did not bind the Crown, as Cowen had no authority to make it.

2nd. That as the payment and receipt of rent and interest were equally referable to existing obligations they did not establish either ratification or part-performance of the alleged agreement for a new lease for seven years.

3rd.-That the evidence of the conversation with the Minister was im material, and therefore a new trial should not have been granted on the ground of surprise.

Decision of Supreme…

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 Thomas v The Crown

Details

AGLC: Thomas v The Crown [1904] HCA 29
Case: [1904] HCA 29
Decision Date: 13 October 1904

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Thomas v The Crown*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal concerning an alleged agreement for a lease. The appellant, Thomas, sought to establish the existence of this lease against the Crown. The central dispute revolved around whether a binding agreement for a lease had been formed, despite the involvement of a subordinate government officer and the application of the Statute of Frauds.

The High Court was required to determine several key legal issues. Firstly, it had to consider whether the actions of the subordinate government officer constituted a ratification of an agreement that would bind the Crown. Secondly, the Court had to assess whether the doctrine of part performance could be invoked to overcome the requirements of the Statute of Frauds, given the circumstances of the alleged agreement.

The Court's reasoning focused on the principles of agency and ratification in the context of government agreements. It was held that a subordinate officer, acting without express or implied authority, could not bind the Crown to an agreement for a lease. Furthermore, the Court examined the doctrine of part performance, concluding that the acts relied upon by the appellant were not unequivocally referable to an agreement for a lease, and therefore, the Statute of Frauds remained a bar to enforcing the alleged agreement. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders