Ross v Henderson

Last updated

Ross v Henderson
Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg
Court Privy Council
Full case nameEwen Neil Ross v John Samuel Lester Henderson
Decided15 November 1977
Citation(s)[1977] 2 NZLR 458
Transcript(s) Privy Council ruling
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Lord Simon of Glaisdale, Lord Salmon, Lord Russell of Killowen, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Sir Garfield Barwick

Ross v Henderson [1977] 2 NZLR 458 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding illegal contracts that were later upheld that the Illegal Contracts Act 1970 had the power to validate (i.e. make legal) despite the fact that another legal enactment "deemed to be unlawful and shall have no effect". [1] [2]

Contents

Background

In 1971, Ross entered into an agreement to a 5-year lease his 345-acre dairy farm to Henderson, with an option to purchase the farm for $65,000.

As leases of 3 years or more are legally required to be registered with the Land Transfer Office, Henderson duly registered the lease, which included the option to purchase.

Unfortunately, the LTO standard declaration form, required under the law, was not designed for such a transaction, and later resulted in Henderson to of breached the law by not registering his purchase, making the sale illegal and of no effect.

In this background, in 1974 Ross's solicitor wrote to Henderson informing him that the sale of the farm had now come to an end.

Henderson filed in court for relief under the Illegal Contracts Act by having the sale agreement validated.

Held

The Privy Council ruled that as the law did not specifically rule out validation, then validation was possible, and given that the law was enacted to prevent undue aggregation of land, and that this was not an issue here, the court upheld the out of Appeals earlier decision to validate the sale agreement.

Footnote: This case is often cited along with the earlier Court of Appeal case of Harding v Coburn [1976] 2 NZLR 577.

Related Research Articles

Statute of frauds Type of statute specifying that certain contracts must be in writing

The statute of frauds is the requirement that certain kinds of contracts be memorialized in writing, signed by the party against whom they are to be enforced, with sufficient content to evidence the contract.

Specific performance Equitable remedy in contract law

Specific performance is an equitable remedy in the law of contract, whereby a court issues an order requiring a party to perform a specific act, such as to complete performance of the contract. It is typically available in the sale of land law, but otherwise is not generally available if damages are an appropriate alternative. Specific performance is almost never available for contracts of personal service, although performance may also be ensured through the threat of proceedings for contempt of court.

Illegal agreement An agreement with an illegal end

An illegal agreement under the common law of contract, is one that the court will not enforce because the purpose of the agreement is to achieve an illegal end. The illegal end must result from performance of the contract itself. The classic example of such an agreement is a contract for murder.

Land Registration Act 2002 United Kingdom legislation

The Land Registration Act 2002 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which repealed and replaced previous legislation governing land registration, in particular the Land Registration Act 1925, which governed an earlier, though similar, system. The Act, together with the Land Registration Rules, regulates the role and practice of HM Land Registry.

English land law Law of real property in England and Wales

English land law is the law of real property in England and Wales. Because of its heavy historical and social significance, land is usually seen as the most important part of English property law. Ownership of land has its roots in the feudal system established by William the Conqueror after 1066, and with a gradually diminishing aristocratic presence, now sees a large number of owners playing in an active market for real estate. The modern law's sources derive from the old courts of common law and equity, along with legislation such as the Law of Property Act 1925, the Settled Land Act 1925, the Land Charges Act 1972, the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 and the Land Registration Act 2002. At its core, English land law involves the acquisition, content and priority of rights and obligations among people with interests in land. Having a property right in land, as opposed to a contractual or some other personal right, matters because it creates privileges over other people's claims, particularly if the land is sold on, the possessor goes insolvent, or when claiming various remedies, like specific performance, in court.

Certainty in English law sets out rules for how judges will interpret, sever or put contracts, trusts and other voluntary obligations into effect.

<i>Frazer v Walker</i>

Frazer v Walker, is a landmark New Zealand court case that went to the Privy Council on appeal. The case upheld the concept that an owner of interest in land which was originally obtained from the rightful owner through fraud, still obtains an indefeasible interest in that title if they were unaware of the fraud.

<i>Efstratiou v Glantschnig</i>

Efstratiou v Glantschnig (1972) is an often cited New Zealand case to the limits of indefeasibility of title to land ownership, where in this case, the purchaser of the land was aware of the title fraud at the time of the purchase of the property.

<i>Hart v OConnor</i>

Hart v O'Connor [1985] UKPC 1 is an important case in New Zealand, also relevant for English contract law, regarding mental capacity to enter into contract as well as regarding unconscionable bargains, which made it as far as the Privy Council.

<i>Conlon v Ozolins</i>

Conlon v Ozolins (1984) NZLR 489 is an important New Zealand case involving the legal issues of non est factum and mutual mistake.

The South African law of lease is an area of the legal system in South Africa which describes the rules applicable to a contract of lease. This is broadly defined as a synallagmatic contract between two parties, the lessor and the lessee, in terms of which one, the lessor, binds himself to give the other, the lessee, the temporary use and enjoyment of a thing, in whole or in part, or of his services or those of another person; the lessee, meanwhile, binds himself to pay a sum of money as compensation, or rent, for that use and enjoyment. The law of lease is often discussed as a counterpart to the law of sale.

<i>Mall Finance & Investment Co Ltd v Slater</i>

Mall Finance & Investment Co Ltd v Slater [1976] 2 NZLR 685, is a New Zealand case regarding whether a contract entered into to stop a party for filing criminal charge is legally enforceable or not. It is more often cited as Slater v Mall Finance.

<i>Polymer Developments Group Ltd v Tilialo</i>

Polymer Developments Group Ltd v Tilialo [2002] 3 NZLR 258 is a New Zealand case regarding the legality of contracts created to prevent a prosecution, which unlike the earlier similar precedents of Mall Finance v Slater [1976] 2 NZLR 685 and Barsdell v Kerr [1979] 2 NZLR 731, in this case however, although the contract was clearly illegal, relief was granted to the creditor.

<i>Harding v Coburn</i>

Harding v Coburn [1976] 2 NZLR 577 was a New Zealand case that was one of the first that upheld that the Illegal Contracts Act 1970 had the power to validate despite the fact that another legal enactment "deemed to be unlawful and shall have no effect".

<i>Tri-Star Customs and Forwarding Ltd v Denning</i>

Tri-Star Customs and Forwarding Ltd v Denning [1999] 1 NZLR 33 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding unilateral mistakes under the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977.

<i>Shotter v Westpac Banking Corp</i>

Shotter v Westpac Banking Corp [1988] 2 NZLR 316 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the definition of what is a mistake under the Contractual Mistakes Act.

<i>Benjamin Developments Ltd v Robt Jones (Pacific) Ltd</i> New Zealand contract law case

Benjamin Developments Ltd v Robt Jones (Pacific) Ltd [1994] 3 NZLR 189 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the interpretation of express terms of a contract. Express terms must be given their plain meaning and extrinsic evidence is not able to be considered, unless such terms are uncertain or ambiguous.

<i>Fenton v Scottys Car Sales Ltd</i>

Fenton v Scotty's Car Sales Ltd [1968] NZLR 929 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the legality of illegal contracts that pre date the Illegal Contracts Act 1970.

<i>Re AIC Merchant Finance Ltd (in rec)</i>

Re AIC Merchant Finance Ltd [1990] 2 NZLR 385 (1990) 5 NZCLC 66,153 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding relief for Illegal Contracts under the Illegal Contracts Act 1970 where validation is not legally possible.

<i>Catley v Herbert</i>

Catley v Herbert [1988] 1 NZLR 606 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding whether a contract illegal under law, can be subsequently validated under the Illegal Contracts Act 1970.

References

  1. Chetwin, Maree; Graw, Stephen; Tiong, Raymond (2006). An introduction to the Law of Contract in New Zealand (4th ed.). Thomson Brookers. p. 302. ISBN   0-86472-555-8.
  2. Gerbic, Philippa; Lawrence, Martin (2003). Understanding Commercial Law (5th ed.). LexisNexis. ISBN   0-408-71714-9.