Norton v Angus [1926] HCA 35

Norton v Angus [1926] HCA 35

The contract for sale of two perpetual lease selections was not illegal as it could be legally performed by having the land transferred to two persons, neither in trust for the other. As such, the respondent was not entitled to repayment of the deposit. However, due to the practical difficulties and risks in enforcing specific performance (including risk of forfeiture under the Land Acts), the appropriate remedy is not specific performance but an inquiry as to damages sustained by the appellant by reason of the respondent's breach.

Parties
Appellant, Plaintiff, Vendor: Edward Charles Norton; Respondent, Defendant, Purchaser: Frank Angus
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 October 1926
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Queensland
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Judgment reversed.
Legal Topics
Vendor and Purchaser, Specific Performance, Illegality of Contract, Land Law in Queensland
Property Law Contract Law Vendor and Purchaser Specific Performance Illegality of Contract Land Law in Queensland

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 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Charles Norton

Appellant, Plaintiff, Vendor

Frank Angus

Respondent, Defendant, Purchaser

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Queensland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract for sale of perpetual lease selections exceeding maximum area allowed under Land Acts is illegal
  2. 2 Whether specific performance should be ordered or damages awarded
  3. 3 Whether respondent is entitled to repayment of deposit

Ratio Decidendi

The contract for sale of two perpetual lease selections was not illegal as it could be legally performed by having the land transferred to two persons, neither in trust for the other. As such, the respondent was not entitled to repayment of the deposit. However, due to the practical difficulties and risks in enforcing specific performance (including risk of forfeiture under the Land Acts), the appropriate remedy is not specific performance but an inquiry as to damages sustained by the appellant by reason of the respondent's breach.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Judgment reversed.

Orders

  • Inquiry at the risk of the appellant as to what damages (if any) he has sustained by reason of the respondent not having performed the agreement of 6th May 1925.
  • Judgment for the appellant on the counterclaim.