Bentley v Benbow [1957] HCA 70
The appeal was dismissed because s. 62 (5) (h) did not apply to premises whose earlier use as a manse had been discontinued and whose religious-use purpose, if any, had been fulfilled and later abandoned. The statutory words "have been acquired for use as" refer to an unfulfilled acquisition purpose prevented by lack of possession, not to a remote historical purpose. In addition, the land was originally vacant land forming part of a larger trust parcel for several church-related objects and was not acquired as "premises" for the purposes of the Act; treating later construction of the manse as an acquisition of premises would distort the word "acquired".
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal by Special Leave From an Order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales Prohibiting Further Proceedings on an Order for Possession / High Court Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['recovery of Possession' 'notice to Quit' 'prescribed Premises' 'parsonage, Vicarage, Presbytery or Other Like Premises' 'construction of S. 62 (5) (h) of the Landlord and Tenant (amendment) Act 1948 1954']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Special Leave From an Order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales Prohibiting Further Proceedings on an Order for Possession / High Court Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether premises formerly used as a manse but later let for residential use had been acquired for use as a parsonage, vicarage, presbytery or other like premises within s. 62 (5) (h) of the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1948-1954.' 'Whether s. 62 (5) (h) applies where the purpose for which premises were allegedly acquired had previously been fulfilled and later abandoned, rather than remaining unfulfilled because the owner was out of possession.' 'Whether vacant land conveyed on trust for a church, schoolhouse and other connected buildings was acquired as premises for the purposes of s. 62 (5) (h).']
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because s. 62 (5) (h) did not apply to premises whose earlier use as a manse had been discontinued and whose religious-use purpose, if any, had been fulfilled and later abandoned. The statutory words "have been acquired for use as" refer to an unfulfilled acquisition purpose prevented by lack of possession, not to a remote historical purpose. In addition, the land was originally vacant land forming part of a larger trust parcel for several church-related objects and was not acquired as "premises" for the purposes of the Act; treating later construction of the manse as an acquisition of premises would distort the word "acquired".
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment