Hume v Monro (No 2) [1943] HCA 7

Ea

67 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA. 461

{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

HUME AND OTHERS 3 5 : : . APPELLANTS ; PLAINTIFFS, ' AND MONRO AND OTHERS i ' 5 : . RESPONDENTS. DEFENDANTS, [No. 2.]

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

Practice—Supreme Court (N.S.W.)—Equitable jurisdiction—Declaration of right— 4H, G, or A. Negative declaration—Want of equity—Involvement of legal rights—Formulation 1943, of claim in precise and definite terms—Hquity Act 1901 (N.S.W.) (No. 24 of ae 1901), sec. 10—Administration of Justice Act 1924 (N.S.W.) (No. 42 of 1924), Sypey, sec, 18, April 14-16;

cat gen lbaencitt fa tite Shameme Cant of May Sadia Weim asemet. 2

able jurisdiction in which the relief sought was, in effect, declarations negativing se sik privity between the plaintiff and the defendant in respect of certain land and and liability of the plaintiff to pay money to the defendant in respect thereof, The Wiliams JJ. claim for this relief was based on allegations of certain facts and an obligation

that the defendant claimed that by virtue of those facts the plaintiff was and

would continue to be liable to pay rent to the defendant in respect of the

said land.* The suit was dismissed. On appeal to the High Court,

Held that the suit was properly dismissed: by Latham C.J. and Starke J. on the ground that the evidence did not disclose such a precise definable equitable claim by the defendant as would form proper subject matter for a suit for a negative declaration in the Supreme Court of New South Wales in its equitable jurisdiction; by Rich and Williams JJ. on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant was not entitled to have specifically performed a contract for a lease made between the plaintiff and the defendant's predecessor in title.

Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Roper J.): Hume v. Munro, (1942) 42 8.R. (N.S.W.) 218; 59 W.N. 132, affirmed.