Craine v Australian Deposit and Mortgage Bank Limited [1912] HCA 60

Craine v Australian Deposit and Mortgage Bank Limited [1912] HCA 60

The majority (Griffith C.J. and Isaacs J.) found that the appellant had established, on the balance of probabilities and supported by strong contemporaneous and consistent evidence, that the land (excepting a 2 feet 6 inch strip along Washington Street) was fenced and in adverse possession before November 1891. The Supreme Court's decision was reversed except as to that narrow strip, following established principles for appellate review of factual findings but finding that the trial judge gave weight to testimony inconsistent with itself or with indisputable fact.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Thomas Henry Craine; Respondent/plaintiff: Australian Deposit and Mortgage Bank Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 October 1912
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / High Court Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Appeals on Questions of Fact, Weight of Evidence
Property Law Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Appeals on Questions of Fact Weight of Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Henry Craine

Appellant/defendant

Australian Deposit and Mortgage Bank Limited

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / High Court Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant had adverse possession of the land for the requisite period to defeat the plaintiff's title
  2. 2 The weight to be attributed to contemporary and subsequent evidence when determining possession in an action for recovery of land

Ratio Decidendi

The majority (Griffith C.J. and Isaacs J.) found that the appellant had established, on the balance of probabilities and supported by strong contemporaneous and consistent evidence, that the land (excepting a 2 feet 6 inch strip along Washington Street) was fenced and in adverse possession before November 1891. The Supreme Court's decision was reversed except as to that narrow strip, following established principles for appellate review of factual findings but finding that the trial judge gave weight to testimony inconsistent with itself or with indisputable fact.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Judgment for the respondents (plaintiffs) limited to the recovery of a strip 2 feet 6 inches wide along Washington Street;
  • Judgment for the defendant as to the remainder of the land without costs.