Kater v Kater [1960] HCA 96

Kater v Kater [1960] HCA 96

Even giving s. 24(1) of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1941 (N.S.W.) its widest interpretation, its language was insufficient to require notice to quit as a condition for determining a true common law tenancy at will. The respondent's tenancy had therefore been determined before the writ of ejectment, and he could not resist the appellant's claim for possession on the basis of non-compliance with s. 24(1).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Ejectment; Appeal Concerning Possession of Land and Tenancy at Will / High Court Appeal From an Order of the Full Court Dismissing an Appeal From the Trial Judge
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs.
Legal Topics
['tenancy at Will' 'notice to Quit' 'possession of Land' 'rescission of Contract for Sale of Land' 'agricultural Holdings Act, 1941 (n.s.w.)']
['property Law' 'landlord and Tenant' 'agricultural Holdings'] ['tenancy at Will' 'notice to Quit' 'possession of Land' 'rescission of Contract for Sale of Land' 'agricultural Holdings Act, 1941 (n.s.w.)']

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

Ejectment; Appeal Concerning Possession of Land and Tenancy at Will / High Court Appeal From an Order of the Full Court Dismissing an Appeal From the Trial Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s. 24(1) of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1941 (N.S.W.) required a notice to quit to determine a common law tenancy at will of an agricultural holding.' "Whether the respondent could resist the appellant's claim to possession on the basis that his common law tenancy at will had not been determined by a notice to quit conforming with s. 24(1)."]

Ratio Decidendi

Even giving s. 24(1) of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1941 (N.S.W.) its widest interpretation, its language was insufficient to require notice to quit as a condition for determining a true common law tenancy at will. The respondent's tenancy had therefore been determined before the writ of ejectment, and he could not resist the appellant's claim for possession on the basis of non-compliance with s. 24(1).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Order of the Full Court set aside.' 'In lieu thereof, the appeal to the Full Court allowed with costs and the order of the trial judge set aside.' 'Declared that the appellant was on 12 September 1958, and still is, entitled to possession of the subject land.' 'Adjudged that the appellant recover possession of the...