Durham Holdings Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales

Durham Holdings Pty Ltd (Durham) sought to restrain the State of New South Wales (NSW) from proceeding with the compulsory acquisition of certain land under the *Public Works Act 1912* (NSW). Durham argued that the acquisition was invalid because the Minister for Public Works had not formed the requisite opinion that the land was necessary for a public work, as required by section 34 of the Act. The dispute ultimately reached the High Court of Australia.

The High Court was required to determine whether the Minister's purported opinion, as evidenced by the gazettal notice, was sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement that the Minister be of the opinion that the land was necessary for a public work. Specifically, the court considered the nature of the opinion required by section 34, the evidentiary requirements for establishing that opinion, and whether the gazettal notice constituted sufficient proof of the Minister's state of mind.

The High Court held that the Minister's opinion was a jurisdictional fact, and the gazettal notice was conclusive evidence that the Minister had formed the opinion required by section 34. McHugh and Callinan JJ, in their joint judgment, reasoned that the statutory scheme contemplated that the gazettal notice would serve as proof of the Minister's satisfaction. They affirmed that the court's role was not to review the merits of the Minister's decision but to ascertain whether the statutory preconditions for the exercise of power had been met, and that the gazettal notice fulfilled this evidentiary burden.

The appeal was dismissed.