Blume v R [1918] HCA 49
It may properly be determined that the absence of a registered bailiff for several weeks broke the continuity of occupation required under sec. 89, causing a failure to comply with the condition of the lease and rendering it liable to forfeiture.
- Parties
- Appellant: Charles Blume, junior; Respondent: The King
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 13 September 1918
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of Queensland to the High Court of Australia
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Crown Lands, Lease Conditions, Performance of Conditions, Occupation, Continuous Residence, Residence by Bailiffs, Forfeiture
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Charles Blume, junior
Appellant
The King
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of Queensland to the High Court of Australia
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the absence of a registered bailiff for a period broke the requirement of continuous occupation under sec. 89 of the Land Act 1910 (Qld) and rendered the lease liable to forfeiture.
Ratio Decidendi
It may properly be determined that the absence of a registered bailiff for several weeks broke the continuity of occupation required under sec. 89, causing a failure to comply with the condition of the lease and rendering it liable to forfeiture.
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