Crooks National Stores Pty Ltd v Collie [1957] HCA 80

Crooks National Stores Pty Ltd v Collie [1957] HCA 80

By majority, the High Court held that Edward Carter Whiteford was a beneficiary within s. 37 (5) (i) and that the provision was not confined to beneficiaries with a present right to possession. The premises could be reasonably required in the sense of being needed for his personal occupation, and there was ample evidence supporting that finding. The notice to quit was sufficient notwithstanding the description of the respondents as personal representatives. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning an Order of Ejectment Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1948 1955 Vict. / High Court Appeal From an Order of the Full Supreme Court of Victoria Discharging an Order Nisi to Review an Order of the Court of Petty Sessions at Malvern
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['notice to Quit' 'ejectment' 'prescribed Grounds for Recovery of Prescribed Premises' 'meaning of Beneficiary Under a Trust or in an Estate' 'reasonable Requirement for Personal Occupation' 'personal Representatives and Trustees']
['landlord and Tenant' 'trusts and Estates' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['notice to Quit' 'ejectment' 'prescribed Grounds for Recovery of Prescribed Premises' 'meaning of Beneficiary Under a Trust or in an Estate' 'reasonable Requirement for Personal Occupation' 'personal Representatives and Trustees']

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 Concerning an Order of Ejectment Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1948 1955 Vict. / High Court Appeal From an Order of the Full Supreme Court of Victoria Discharging an Order Nisi to Review an Order of the Court of Petty Sessions at Malvern

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the expression "a beneficiary under the trust" in s. 37 (5) (i) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1948-1955 Vict. is limited to a beneficiary entitled to possession or whom a court of equity would let into possession.' 'Whether there was evidence that Edward Carter Whiteford reasonably required the premises for his personal occupation.' 'Whether the notice to quit was defective because it described the respondents as personal representatives rather than trustees.']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the High Court held that Edward Carter Whiteford was a beneficiary within s. 37 (5) (i) and that the provision was not confined to beneficiaries with a present right to possession. The premises could be reasonably required in the sense of being needed for his personal occupation, and there was ample evidence supporting that finding. The notice to quit was sufficient notwithstanding the description of the respondents as personal representatives. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']