Dalby v Gazzard [1949] HCA 36

Dalby v Gazzard [1949] HCA 36

John Gazzard was a protected person in actual occupation, but he was not a person claiming under the lessee for the purposes of reg. 30 (6). Sheila and William Gazzard merely let him into possession and handed him the key; there was no sub-lease, no assignment, no writing or deed, no contract for valuable consideration, and no intention to assign an estate or interest. Because his possession was not founded on a derivative right or title good against the lessee and dependent on the continuance of the tenancy, the magistrate's direction preventing execution of the warrant against him was erroneous.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Special Leave Concerning Recovery of Possession of Premises / High Court Appeal From Portion of an Order Made by a Court of Petty Sessions Exercising Federal Jurisdiction
Outcome
Appeal allowed as against John Gazzard.
Legal Topics
['recovery of Possession' 'warrant of Possession' 'protected Person' 'determination of Tenancy' 'claiming Under the Lessee' 'national Security Regulations']
['property Law' 'landlord and Tenant' 'federal Jurisdiction'] ['recovery of Possession' 'warrant of Possession' 'protected Person' 'determination of Tenancy' 'claiming Under the Lessee' 'national Security Regulations']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Special Leave Concerning Recovery of Possession of Premises / High Court Appeal From Portion of an Order Made by a Court of Petty Sessions Exercising Federal Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether John Gazzard was a person claiming under the lessee within reg. 30 (6) of the National Security (War Service Moratorium) Regulations.' 'Whether the magistrate correctly directed that the warrant of possession should not be executed against John Gazzard because he was a protected person in actual occupation.']

Ratio Decidendi

John Gazzard was a protected person in actual occupation, but he was not a person claiming under the lessee for the purposes of reg. 30 (6). Sheila and William Gazzard merely let him into possession and handed him the key; there was no sub-lease, no assignment, no writing or deed, no contract for valuable consideration, and no intention to assign an estate or interest. Because his possession was not founded on a derivative right or title good against the lessee and dependent on the continuance of the tenancy, the magistrate's direction preventing execution of the warrant against him was erroneous.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed as against John Gazzard.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'So much of the order of the magistrate as directed that the warrant of possession be not executed against the respondent John Gazzard discharged.' 'Costs of the appeal to this Court to be paid by the respondent John Gazzard.']