Moore v Dimond [1929] HCA 43

Moore v Dimond [1929] HCA 43

Continuing occupation after expiry of a lease and payment of weekly rent under a completed written agreement for a further term creates, at law, a tenancy from year to year, even if the formal lease is unenforceable and the rent is paid weekly. The presumption in favour of a yearly tenancy is not displaced by the weekly character of rent in the context where the parties’ intention was for a longer term; thus, the Supreme Court’s ruling that there was only a weekly tenancy was incorrect.

Parties
Appellant: Moore; Respondent: Dimond
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court of South Australia (full Court), Decision of Local Court Stated Special Case
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Supreme Court's answer regarding tenancy duration set aside.
Legal Topics
Landlord and Tenant, Tenancy From Year to Year, Lease Agreements, Specific Performance, Jurisdiction of Courts
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Tenancy From Year to Year Lease Agreements Specific Performance Jurisdiction of Courts

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 6 Authorities cited 43 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moore

Appellant

Dimond

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court of South Australia (full Court), Decision of Local Court Stated Special Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether continuing occupation and payment of weekly rent under an unenforceable lease agreement results in a tenancy from year to year
  2. 2 Whether Local Court had jurisdiction to grant specific performance and recover rent under an agreement for a lease

Ratio Decidendi

Continuing occupation after expiry of a lease and payment of weekly rent under a completed written agreement for a further term creates, at law, a tenancy from year to year, even if the formal lease is unenforceable and the rent is paid weekly. The presumption in favour of a yearly tenancy is not displaced by the weekly character of rent in the context where the parties’ intention was for a longer term; thus, the Supreme Court’s ruling that there was only a weekly tenancy was incorrect.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Supreme Court's answer regarding tenancy duration set aside.

Orders

  • Case remitted to the Supreme Court to act in accordance with the High Court's opinion that the defendant was a tenant from year to year.
  • Order for costs in the Supreme Court discharged; costs of the special case and order thereon to be paid by defendant.