Thomas v R [1904] HCA 29

Thomas v R [1904] HCA 29

The agreement between the defendant and Cowen did not bind the Crown as Cowen had no authority to make it; the payment and receipt of rent and interest were referable to existing obligations and did not establish either ratification or part-performance of the alleged agreement; evidence of the conversation with the Minister was immaterial, and thus a new trial should not have been granted on the ground of surprise. Judgment was ordered to be entered for the plaintiff (the Crown).

Parties
Defendant: Thomas; Plaintiff: The Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 October 1904
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Western Australia
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff (the Crown) with costs, except as to the costs of the issue in which the defendant succeeded.
Legal Topics
Statute of Frauds, Part Performance, Ratification, Authority of Public Officers, Tenancy, Lease Agreements, New Trial Surprise
Land Law Contract Law Government/administrative Law Statute of Frauds Part Performance Ratification Authority of Public Officers Tenancy +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas

Defendant

The Crown

Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Western Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether verbal agreement for a new lease by subordinate government officer bound the Crown
  2. 2 Whether acts relied upon amounted to part-performance to take the case out of the Statute of Frauds
  3. 3 Whether the payment and receipt of rent constituted ratification or creation of a new tenancy

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement between the defendant and Cowen did not bind the Crown as Cowen had no authority to make it; the payment and receipt of rent and interest were referable to existing obligations and did not establish either ratification or part-performance of the alleged agreement; evidence of the conversation with the Minister was immaterial, and thus a new trial should not have been granted on the ground of surprise. Judgment was ordered to be entered for the plaintiff (the Crown).

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff (the Crown) with costs, except as to the costs of the issue in which the defendant succeeded.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Crown for possession of the land with costs of the action and of the appeal, except the costs of the issue as to the agreement with Cowen.
  • Judgment of the Supreme Court of Western Australia varied.