George v Greater Adelaide Land Development Company Limited [1929] HCA 40

George v Greater Adelaide Land Development Company Limited [1929] HCA 40

A contract for sale of land entered into before compliance with the Town Planning and Development Act 1920 (S.A.)—even if expressly made subject to compliance—is unlawful and invalid; moneys paid under such a contract are not recoverable in the absence of fraud or inequitable circumstances, as both parties were in pari delicto.

Parties
Defendant / Appellant: George; Plaintiff / Respondent: Greater Adelaide Land Development Company Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of South Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Supreme Court judgment set aside in part and substituted; neither side recovers on contract or counterclaim
Legal Topics
Statutory Illegality in Contracts, Town Planning and Development Act Compliance, Contract Recovery and Restitution, Interpretation of Sale and Subdivision Statutes
Property Law Contract Law Statutory Interpretation Statutory Illegality in Contracts Town Planning and Development Act Compliance Contract Recovery and Restitution Interpretation of Sale and Subdivision Statutes

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

Parties

George

Defendant / Appellant

Greater Adelaide Land Development Company Limited

Plaintiff / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of South Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a contract for sale of land subject to statute compliance, made before statutory requirements met, is illegal and invalid under the Town Planning and Development Act 1920 (S.A.)
  2. 2 Whether moneys paid under such illegal contracts can be recovered by the purchaser
  3. 3 Whether the land was 'subdivided land' as defined under the Land Agents Acts 1925-1927 (S.A.) at the relevant time

Ratio Decidendi

A contract for sale of land entered into before compliance with the Town Planning and Development Act 1920 (S.A.)—even if expressly made subject to compliance—is unlawful and invalid; moneys paid under such a contract are not recoverable in the absence of fraud or inequitable circumstances, as both parties were in pari delicto.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Supreme Court judgment set aside in part and substituted; neither side recovers on contract or counterclaim

Orders

  • The action and counterclaim both dismissed.
  • Costs ordered: Appellant to pay costs relating to issue of statutory compliance and counterclaim; Respondent to pay costs of other issues and entire appeal costs.