Fletcher v Manton [1940] HCA 32

Fletcher v Manton [1940] HCA 32

The obligation imposed by the demolition order did not arise until it was served on the vendor, by which time purchasers were equitable owners. The risk of loss therefore fell on the purchasers. Vendor was able to give good title under the contract, as at the contract date no statutory burden attached.

Parties
Appellants (purchasers): John Hamlyn Fletcher and Florence Hilda Fletcher; Respondent (vendor): Russell Manton
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria Decision (vendor and Purchaser Summons)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Sale of Land, Risk in Property Sale, Statutory Demolition Orders, Equitable Ownership

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Hamlyn Fletcher and Florence Hilda Fletcher

Appellants (purchasers)

Russell Manton

Respondent (vendor)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria Decision (vendor and Purchaser Summons)

  1. 1 Whether the purchaser or vendor bears the loss when statutory demolition orders are made and served after the contract of sale but before completion, where both parties are initially unaware of the order
  2. 2 Whether vendor can show a good title when demolition order has issued against improvements described in the contract

Ratio Decidendi

The obligation imposed by the demolition order did not arise until it was served on the vendor, by which time purchasers were equitable owners. The risk of loss therefore fell on the purchasers. Vendor was able to give good title under the contract, as at the contract date no statutory burden attached.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs