Clarke v Tyler [1949] HCA 34

High Court of Australia Latham C.J. Rich, Dixon, McTiernan and Williams JJ. Clarke v Tyler [1949] HCA 34

ORDER Appeal dismissed with costs.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

Aug. 12 Latham C.J.

The appellant, William James Clarke, sued the respondent Philip Lincoln Tyler, for damages for breach of an oral share-farming agreement. The agreement contained no provision relating to its duration and therefore, apart from the effect of the statute hereafter mentioned, would have been an agreement determinable upon reasonable notice. It was held by the learned trial judge, Owen J., that by reason of the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1941 the agreement was an agreement not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof and that therefore no action could be brought upon it: Statute of Frauds, 29 Car. II, c. 3, s. 4. The Full Court dismissed an appeal from the judgment and the plaintiff now appeals to this Court. It was found by Owen J. that the oral agreement made between the parties was as follows:—"1. The plaintiff was to run a dairy farm on portion of the defendant's property; 2. The plaintiff was to supply the necessary labour and to be at liberty to occupy free of charge a cottage on the property; 3. The defendant was to provide the milking herd and the necessary plant and equipment and was to improve the existing facilities so as to bring them up to the standards required by the Milk Board; 4. The defendant was to increase the number of the herd to a figure which would ensure that 60 cows would always be in milk. Although no argument on it was addressed to me, I may say that I regard this as a contractual obligation and not merely as a declaration of intention by the defendant. 5. The cost of producing and marketing milk and cream was to be charged against the gross returns from the products of the dairy and the parties were then to divide the balance in equal shares."