Brown v Smitt [1924] HCA 11

160 HIGH COURT ul

H.C.or A. We think the case was not one to be withdrawn from the jury,

1924. and therefore a new trial should be ordered. ~~

Eape

= Special leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed. — Tee eh New trial ordered. Prisoner remanded in hed custody to await his trial subject to any bail which the Supreme Court may in its discretion

think fit to allow.

Solicitors for the appellant, Reid & Reid, Newcastle, by Lobban, Lobban & Harney. Solicitor for the respondent, J. V. Tillett, Crown Solicitor for

New South Wales. ' B.L. [HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.] BROWN eS : 3 3 8 2 . APPELLANT; DEFENDANT, AND SMITT 0. -5RR 6 ee type PrarntirF, '

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA.

H.C. or A. Vendor and Purchaser — Sale of land — Purchaser in possession — Fraudulent

1924, misrepresentation by vendor — Rescission of contract — Compensation — ~~ Inprovements by purchaser — Repairs — Losses in business. Mreourne.

Feb. 2 May 14. for the sale of land where the purchaser had entered into possession of the land,

In an action by a purchaser against a vendor for rescission of a contract

Knox C., Held, by Knox C.J., Gavan Duffy and Starke JJ. (Isaacs and Rich J. Gaya Dusty dissenting), that the case being one in which rescission should be ordered, the ich ani

Starke JJ. purchaser was entitled to recover as compensation the value added to the land _

34 C.L.R.| OF AUSTRALIA.

by reason of permanent improvements, which were not mere matters of taste H.C. or A.

or personal enjoyment, made by him before he knew of the matters which justified the rescission.

Held, also, by Knox C.J., Isaacs, Gavan Duffy, Rich and Starke JJ., that the purchaser was entitled to recover as compensation the cost of necessary repairs, but was not entitled to recover as compensation collateral losses which he had sustained by reason of the fact that he had entered into the contract, such as losses incurred in carrying on a business on the land.