Goodwin v Phillips

The appellant, the Crown, appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the respondent, W. O. Phillips, the holder of an improvement lease granted under the Crown Lands Act 1895. Phillips had been prosecuted and convicted under section 93 of the Crown Lands Act 1884 for unlawfully ringbarking timber on his leasehold without the permission of the Local Land Board. The Supreme Court had made absolute a rule nisi for prohibition against further proceedings on the conviction, finding that the information disclosed no offence.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the penal provisions of section 93 of the Crown Lands Act 1884 applied to an improvement lease granted under section 26 of the Crown Lands Act 1895, and if so, whether the specific conditions of the respondent's improvement lease exempted him from liability under section 93. The court was required to determine how later legislation, which provided for a new type of lease with potentially inconsistent conditions, should be construed in relation to earlier legislation that imposed specific restrictions on lessees.

The High Court held that section 26 of the Crown Lands Act 1895, which authorised the Governor to grant improvement leases with such covenants and provisions as deemed expedient, was intended to allow for conditions that might be inconsistent with earlier legislation. The court reasoned that the scheme of section 26, particularly concerning the improvement and potential destruction of timber on lands unsuitable for settlement, was fundamentally different from the timber preservation requirements of section 93 of the 1884 Act. Therefore, where the conditions of an improvement lease, such as the respondent's, provided a different regime for dealing with timber, including ringbarking, and specified different penalties and tribunals for breaches, these conditions operated as an exception to, or implied repeal of, section 93 of the 1884 Act to the extent of the inconsistency. The court found that the respondent's lease, which permitted ringbarking at his option subject to preserving certain timber, was inconsistent with the requirement to obtain permission from the Local Land Board under section 93.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the Supreme Court. The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed with costs.