Tenenwurcel v Tenenwurcel [1958] HCA 12

Tenenwurcel v Tenenwurcel [1958] HCA 12

The appellant did not establish that the judgment involved property or a civil right amounting to or of the value of £1,500. His asserted interest was an equity of redemption subject to the mortgage for unpaid purchase money and to a charge in his favour, and on the available evidence its value was no more than £1,340 and more probably £931. As the burden of proving competency lay on the appellant and there was no evidence that the value had risen sufficiently, the appeal was incompetent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Objection to Competency of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as incompetent with costs.
Legal Topics
['competency of Appeal' 'appeal as of Right Monetary Threshold' 'beneficial Ownership of Land' 'equity of Redemption' 'burden of Establishing Competency']
['appellate Procedure' 'property Law'] ['competency of Appeal' 'appeal as of Right Monetary Threshold' 'beneficial Ownership of Land' 'equity of Redemption' 'burden of Establishing Competency']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Objection to Competency of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the judgment appealed from fulfilled the requirements of s. 35 (1) (a) of the Judiciary Act 1903-1955 by involving a claim, demand or question to or respecting property amounting to or of the value of £1,500.' 'Whether the appellant had shown that the value of the interest affected by the judgment reached the statutory amount required for an appeal as of right.' 'Whether special leave should be granted if there was no appeal as of right.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant did not establish that the judgment involved property or a civil right amounting to or of the value of £1,500. His asserted interest was an equity of redemption subject to the mortgage for unpaid purchase money and to a charge in his favour, and on the available evidence its value was no more than £1,340 and more probably £931. As the burden of proving competency lay on the appellant and there was no evidence that the value had risen sufficiently, the appeal was incompetent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as incompetent with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed as incompetent with costs.']