Corrie v MacDermott

The case of Corrie v. MacDermott involved an appeal by Leslie Gordon Corrie and James Grahame Vidgen, trustees of the Acclimatization Society of Queensland, to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court in MacDermott v. Corrie. The Acclimatization Society of Queensland held land subject to conditions and reservations and extensive restrictions on its use and alienation, with a right for the Crown to resume the land for public purposes. The dispute centred on the valuation of the land upon resumption by the Crown and whether the value should consider the restrictions on the land's use and alienation. The trustees argued that the value should be the unrestricted value of the land, while the respondents contended that the value should reflect the land's value to the Society with the restrictions taken into account.

The legal issues before the court were whether the value of the land to be paid on resumption should be based on its unrestricted value or its value subject to the restrictions, and if the latter, how such value should be ascertained. The Privy Council considered the principles of compensation in similar cases and held that the value to be paid should be the value of the Society's interest in acquiring the land, considering the conditions, reservations, and restrictions. The court found that the arbitrator's award of £7,490, based on unrestricted land value, did not correctly reflect the value to the Society. Instead, the High Court's award of £3,835, reflecting the restricted value, was deemed correct.

The Privy Council further noted that the chance of restrictions being discharged should also be considered, and the likelihood of such restrictions being discharged could affect the value. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's decision, concluding that the trustees were not entitled to the higher valuation of £7,490. The final orders of the Privy Council were to dismiss the appeal with costs.