Oertel v Crocker [1947] HCA 40

Oertel v Crocker [1947] HCA 40

The relevant value under s 35(1)(a)(2) is the value of the appellant's interest as a tenant, not the value of the freehold. As the value of the tenancy interest is less than £300, no appeal lies as of right.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Respondent: John Crocker; Appellant: Alfred Oertel
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application to High Court (on Appeal From Supreme Court of South Australia, Full Court)
Outcome
appeal struck out as incompetent; application for special leave refused
Legal Topics
Appeals as of Right, Jurisdictional Amount, Landlord and Tenant, Possession of Property
Civil Procedure Appeals as of Right Jurisdictional Amount Landlord and Tenant Possession of Property

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

John Crocker

Respondent

Alfred Oertel

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application to High Court (on Appeal From Supreme Court of South Australia, Full Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an appeal lies as of right to the High Court where the subject property is worth more than £300 but the tenant's interest is less than £300 under s 35(1)(a)(2) Judiciary Act 1903-1946.

Ratio Decidendi

The relevant value under s 35(1)(a)(2) is the value of the appellant's interest as a tenant, not the value of the freehold. As the value of the tenancy interest is less than £300, no appeal lies as of right.

Court Disposition

appeal struck out as incompetent; application for special leave refused

Orders

  • Appeal struck out as incompetent.
  • Application for special leave refused.