Commonwealth v Oldfield - [1976] HCA 17

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

McTiernan, Gibbs, Stephen, Mason and Jacobs JJ.

THE COMMONWEALTH v. OLDFIELD

(1976) 133 CLR 612

8 April 1976

Lease

Lease—Agricultural land—Improvements—Lessor entitled to withdraw land from lease—Obligation to pay to lessee value of improvements—Timber clearing, pasture improvement, provision of shade and shelter plantings—Whether improvements on or effected to the land.

Decisions

1976, April 8.
The following written judgments were delivered:-
McTIERNAN J. The question for decision is what is the meaning of the word "improvements" in cl. 2(d) of a lease of land in the Australian Capital Territory, the appellant being the lessor and the respondent the lessee of the land. Clause 2(d) reads:

"2. THE Commonwealth covenants with the lessee - (d) if any land is withdrawn from this lease pursuant to paragraph (g) of clause 3 of this lease, to pay to the lessee the value at the date of the withdrawal of all fixtures and erections on, and of all improvements on or effected by the lessee or by a prior lessee under this lease or under a prior lease of the land to, the land so withdrawn, except such fixtures, erections and improvements, if any, as are expressly excepted from the purchase by the lessee under paragraph (j) of Clause 1 of this lease and except such fixtures, erections and improvements as are removed by the lessee in pursuance of paragraph (e) of this clause, such value to be ascertained by agreement or in default of agreement by arbitration under the provisions of the laws for the time being in force in the said Territory relating to arbitration;" (at p614)

2. The word "improvements" is found in combination with the words "fixtures" and "erections" throughout the lease. None of the words "fixtures", "erections" or "improvements" is defined in the lease. To ascertain what the parties may be presumed to have intended by the combination of words "fixtures, erections and improvements", or each of them, the lease as a whole must be looked at. The combination appears in cll. 1(j), 1(m), 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(k) and 4. These read:

"1. THE lessee covenants with the Commonwealth - ... (j) to purchase from the Commonwealth for the price or sum of five hundred and seventy seven pounds fifteen shillings (in this lease called the purchase money) such of the fixtures, erections and improvements on the said land as at the commencement of the said term were the property of the Commonwealth excepting boundary fence between points Q-R-S-T-U-V-W-X-Y-Z as shown on the said plan annexed hereto. ... (m) to pay to the Commonwealth on demand any expense that may be incurred by the Commonwealth in making good any damage that may be caused to the said land through any fixture erection or improvement being removed pursuant to paragraphs (e) or (f) of Clause 2 of this lease and to pay to the Commonwealth on demand any expense that may be incurred by the Commonwealth in making good any damage that may be caused to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Commonwealth v Oldfield and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1976] HCA 17
Decision Date: 8 April 1976

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Commonwealth of Australia brought proceedings against Mr Oldfield, alleging that he had contravened section 7 of the *Lands Acquisition Act 1906* (Cth) by acquiring land for public purposes without the authority of Parliament. The dispute concerned the validity of the acquisition of certain land by the Commonwealth. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Commonwealth had the power to acquire land for public purposes without specific parliamentary approval, as required by section 7 of the *Lands Acquisition Act 1906* (Cth), or whether such acquisition was invalid. This involved an interpretation of the scope of the Commonwealth's executive power in relation to land acquisition for public purposes.

The High Court considered the constitutional framework governing the acquisition of land by the Commonwealth. It was held that section 7 of the *Lands Acquisition Act 1906* (Cth) did not require specific parliamentary authorisation for every acquisition of land for public purposes. The Court reasoned that the executive government, acting within its constitutional powers, could acquire land for public purposes without the necessity of a specific Act of Parliament for each acquisition, provided the purpose was a valid public purpose of the Commonwealth. The Court found that the acquisition in question was valid.

Orders