Bull v Attorney-General (NSW)

In the case of Bull and others v. The Attorney-General for New South Wales, the Privy Council was called upon to review a decision from the High Court of Australia. The central issue revolved around the validity of reversionary leases granted by the Governor of New South Wales under the Crown Lands Act 1895, and whether these leases could be considered void or voidable. The plaintiffs, who were the defendants in the High Court, argued that the leases were unlawful and should be declared void. The core legal questions were whether the reversionary leases were lawfully granted under section 26 of the Act, and if section 44 rendered these leases voidable rather than void.

The Privy Council examined the statutory language of section 26, concluding that it did not permit the granting of reversionary leases under the 1895 Act, making the leases unlawful. However, the Council found that section 44 of the Act applied to these leases, rendering them voidable instead of void. This interpretation meant that the proper course of action was to follow the procedure outlined in section 44 to determine whether the leases should be avoided or affirmed. Consequently, the Privy Council ruled that the appeal should be allowed, and the information filed by the Attorney-General for New South Wales should be dismissed with costs throughout. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.