Price v Spoor [2021] HCA 20

Price v Spoor [2021] HCA 20

Clause 24 of the mortgages operates as a contractual promise that the mortgagors will not rely upon the limitation defences set out in the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). Such a promise is enforceable and not contrary to public policy because the relevant limitation provisions confer a benefit on individuals and not exclusively in the public interest. Since the mortgagors contracted not to plead the limitation defence, the limitation bar does not arise, and s 24's extinguishment does not operate. The appropriate remedy is to enforce the contractual promise, not merely to confine relief to damages for breach.

Parties
Appellants: Matthew Ward Price as Executor of the Estate of Alan Leslie Price (Deceased) & Ors; Respondents: Christine Claire Spoor as Trustee & Ors
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of Queensland; Judgment of High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Contracting Out of Statutory Rights, Mortgages, Public Policy in Civil Litigation
Contract Law Property Law Banking and Finance Law Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Contracting Out of Statutory Rights Mortgages Public Policy in Civil Litigation

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 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Ward Price as Executor of the Estate of Alan Leslie Price (Deceased) & Ors

Appellants

Christine Claire Spoor as Trustee & Ors

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of Queensland; Judgment of High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parties to a mortgage may agree that the mortgagor will not plead statutory limitation as a defence to an action by the mortgagee under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld)
  2. 2 Whether such a contractual provision is unenforceable as contrary to public policy
  3. 3 Whether s 24 of Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) operates automatically to extinguish the mortgagee’s title after expiry of the limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 24 of the mortgages operates as a contractual promise that the mortgagors will not rely upon the limitation defences set out in the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). Such a promise is enforceable and not contrary to public policy because the relevant limitation provisions confer a benefit on individuals and not exclusively in the public interest. Since the mortgagors contracted not to plead the limitation defence, the limitation bar does not arise, and s 24's extinguishment does not operate. The appropriate remedy is to enforce the contractual promise, not merely to confine relief to damages for breach.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.