Willmott v Kaufline [1909] HCA 49

Willmott v Kaufline [1909] HCA 49

Lodging a postal money order payable to a third party (Registrar) is not a deposit of £5 with the Chairman within sec. 17 of Crown Lands Act 1884; such non-compliance with statutory requirements means appeal is incompetent; questions of law, including on jurisdiction, may be determined by special case stated for the Supreme Court.

Parties
Appellant: Willmott; Respondent: Kaufline
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 August 1909
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales on a Special Case Stated by the Land Appeal Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decision of Supreme Court reversed; order appealed from discharged with costs.
Legal Topics
Appeals From Land Board Decisions, Security for Costs in Appeals, Jurisdiction of Appellate Courts, Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Property Law Appeals From Land Board Decisions Security for Costs in Appeals Jurisdiction of Appellate Courts Statutory Interpretation

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Willmott

Appellant

Kaufline

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales on a Special Case Stated by the Land Appeal Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether lodging a postal money order payable to the Registrar of the Land Appeal Court constitutes a deposit of £5 within the meaning of sec. 17 Crown Lands Act 1884
  2. 2 Whether the right of appeal from Land Board under sec. 6 Crown Lands Amendment Act 1905 was restricted by subsequent legislation or affected by sec. 7 of the Act
  3. 3 Whether questions going to jurisdiction can be decided by way of special case stated for the Supreme Court

Ratio Decidendi

Lodging a postal money order payable to a third party (Registrar) is not a deposit of £5 with the Chairman within sec. 17 of Crown Lands Act 1884; such non-compliance with statutory requirements means appeal is incompetent; questions of law, including on jurisdiction, may be determined by special case stated for the Supreme Court.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decision of Supreme Court reversed; order appealed from discharged with costs.

Orders

  • Question 1 (deposit) answered in the negative.
  • Question 2 (right of appeal) answered in the affirmative.