Regent v Millett [1976] HCA 40

Regent v Millett [1976] HCA 40

The respondents' taking of possession of the property, permitted by the appellants and pursuant to the oral agreement, was unequivocally referable to some such contract as alleged and was by itself sufficient part performance. The appellants could not rely on the Statute of Frauds equivalent to resist specific performance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Specific Performance of an Oral Agreement for Transfer of Land / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From a Court of Appeal Decision Affirming the Trial Judge's Order for Specific Performance
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['specific Performance' 'part Performance' 'oral Agreement for Transfer of Land' 'statute of Frauds' 'conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw) S. 54 A']
['equity' 'contract Law' 'property Law'] ['specific Performance' 'part Performance' 'oral Agreement for Transfer of Land' 'statute of Frauds' 'conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw) S. 54 A']

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 Concerning Specific Performance of an Oral Agreement for Transfer of Land / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From a Court of Appeal Decision Affirming the Trial Judge's Order for Specific Performance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondents' acts amounted to sufficient part performance of an oral agreement for the transfer of a house property so as to answer the Statute of Frauds defence." 'Whether the giving and taking of possession was unequivocally referable to some such contract as that alleged by the respondents.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents' taking of possession of the property, permitted by the appellants and pursuant to the oral agreement, was unequivocally referable to some such contract as alleged and was by itself sufficient part performance. The appellants could not rely on the Statute of Frauds equivalent to resist specific performance.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']