ACT v Garvan

The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) sought to recover from Mr. Garvan the costs of a compulsory acquisition of land. The dispute concerned the interpretation of the *Lands Acquisition Act 1977* (ACT) and the *Land Acquisition Act 1977* (Cth), specifically regarding the entitlement to compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land. The matter was heard by Kirby and Hayne JJ of the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether Mr. Garvan was entitled to compensation for the compulsory acquisition of his land, notwithstanding that he had not been registered as the proprietor of the land at the time of the acquisition. The Court was required to determine the scope of the term "owner" as defined in the relevant legislation and whether it extended to persons with an unregistered interest in the land.

The Court reasoned that the *Lands Acquisition Act 1977* (ACT) and the *Land Acquisition Act 1977* (Cth) provided a scheme for compensation to persons who had suffered loss or damage by reason of the compulsory acquisition of land. Their Honours held that the term "owner" in the context of compulsory acquisition legislation should be interpreted broadly to include any person who has a legal or equitable interest in the land, even if that interest is not formally registered. This interpretation was consistent with the purpose of the legislation, which was to ensure that all persons with a proprietary interest in compulsorily acquired land were adequately compensated for their loss.

The High Court dismissed the ACT's appeal, finding that Mr. Garvan, as the holder of an unregistered interest in the land, was an "owner" for the purposes of the legislation and therefore entitled to compensation.