Haque v Haque [No 2] [1965] HCA 38

Haque v Haque [No 2] [1965] HCA 38

The majority held that all challenged assets except for the items classified as (1) in the Supreme Court order (moneys due under contracts of sale of land) were movables, to be governed by the law of the deceased's domicile, and the right of succession followed accordingly. Interests in partnerships, where on death the representative is entitled only to a sum or share and not to the land itself, are movables. The right to unpaid purchase money (and associated interests in land by a vendor under contract of sale) is a movable. Accordingly, the Supreme Court order declaring the assets to be movables was correct, and the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court of Australia Appeal From Supreme Court of Western Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['succession to Movables and Immovables' 'conflict of Laws' 'characterisation of Proprietary Interests' 'effect of Partnership and Will on Succession' 'doctrine of Conversion and Its Limits' 'classification of Interests in Land (contracts of Sale, Mortgages) as Movable or Immovable']
['private International Law' 'succession Law' 'equity'] ['succession to Movables and Immovables' 'conflict of Laws' 'characterisation of Proprietary Interests' 'effect of Partnership and Will on Succession' 'doctrine of Conversion and Its Limits' 'classification of Interests in Land (contracts of Sale, Mortgages) as Movable or Immovable']

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 / High Court of Australia Appeal From Supreme Court of Western Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether certain assets in a deceased's estate (unpaid purchase money under contracts of sale, partnership interests, rents, land, goodwill, fixtures, fittings) are to be classified as movables or immovables for the purpose of succession under private international law." "Whether, under the law of Western Australia, succession to such assets is governed by the law of the deceased's domicile or by the law of the situs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that all challenged assets except for the items classified as (1) in the Supreme Court order (moneys due under contracts of sale of land) were movables, to be governed by the law of the deceased's domicile, and the right of succession followed accordingly. Interests in partnerships, where on death the representative is entitled only to a sum or share and not to the land itself, are movables. The right to unpaid purchase money (and associated interests in land by a vendor under contract of sale) is a movable. Accordingly, the Supreme Court order declaring the assets to be movables was correct, and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']