Legal Research
Cases
Grace Brothers Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth

Grace Brothers Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth

Link copied

Case Copied 17 April 1946 69 min read

Contents

On this page

72 CLR 269

GRACE BROTHERS PROPRIETARY LIMITED

P.C. theat dismissed 82 C.L.R. 35

Refrr'd To: 85 C.L.R.568

THE COMMONWEALTH AND ANOTHER

DEFENDANTS.

87 C.L.R. 162 87B.L.R. 508 Constitutional Law (Cth.)-Acquisition of property" Just terms "-Statute-

Validity-Compulsory acquisition of fland-Compensation-Valuation-Principal and interestDefence-National Security-Notification of acquisition of land- " Purpose therein expressed " - " Purposes of the Commonwealth '-Regulation MELBOURNE, inconsistent with Commonwealth statute-Validity-The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. e. 12), S. 51 (vi.), (xxxi.)-Lands Acquisition Act 1906-1936 (No. 13 of March 1; 1906-No. 60 of 1936), 88. 15, 28, 29, 40-National Security Act 1939-1943 (No. 15 of 1939-No. 38 of 1943), 88. 5, 18-National Security (Supplementary) Regulations (S.R. 1940 No. 126-1944 No. 74), reg. 72A.

The Lands Acquisition Act 1906-1936 is not invalid because of the provisions of SS. 28, 29, 40, thereof (which are within the power of the Commonwealth Parliament under S. 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution to legislate with respect to 'the acquisition of property on just terms

for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws ") or because it does not appropriate moneys to pay compensation assessed under the Act.

So held by the whole Court, except that Williams J. was of opinion that par. (a) (and, semble, par. (b) ) of sub-s. (1) of S. 29 was invalid but was severable.

It was provided by S. 15 of the Lands Acquisition Act 1906-1936 :-" (1) The Governor-General may direct that any land may be acquired by the Common- wealth from the owner by compulsory process. (2) The Governor-General may thereupon, by notification published in the Gazette, declare that the land has been acquired under this Act for the public purpose therein expressed." Regulation 72A of the National Security (Supplementary) Regulations provided:

Notwithstanding anything contained in section 15 of the Lands Acquisition Act 1906-1936, the public purpose for which any land has been acquired shall be deemed to be expressed sufficiently if the notification declares that the land has been acquired under that Act for the purposes of the Commonwealth."

72 CLR 270

Held that the regulation was authorized by the National Security Act 1939. 1943 and by virtue of S. 18 of that Act it had effect notwithstanding its incon- sistency with S. 15 (2) of the Lands Acquisition Act accordingly it rendered effective a notification stating that land specified had been acquired for "purposes of the Commonwealth" even though such a notification would not have been sufficient under S. 15 (2) itself.

DEMURRER and MOTION.

In its statement of claim in an action against the Commonwealth and the Minister for the Interior, Grace Bros. Pty. Ltd. alleged that by a notification published in the Commonwealth Gazette on 8th November 1945 the defendants had purported to acquire for the Commonwealth pursuant to the Lands Acquisition Act 1906-1936 certain land owned by the plaintiff and were proceeding to demolish a building on the land.

The published notification of acquisition stated that the land had been acquired for the following…

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 Grace Brothers Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth 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: [1946] HCA 11
Decision Date: 17 April 1946

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Grace Brothers Pty Ltd (the plaintiff) brought an action against the Commonwealth and the Minister for the Interior (the defendants), seeking declarations that the Lands Acquisition Act 1906-1936 was void and that a notification of acquisition of the plaintiff's land was void. The plaintiff also sought an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the land. The defendants demurred to the statement of claim, arguing it disclosed no cause of action and that the Act and the notification were valid. The Full Court of the High Court of Australia heard both the demurrer and a motion for an interlocutory injunction.

The primary legal issues before the Court were: (1) whether the Lands Acquisition Act 1906-1936 was invalid for failing to provide "just terms" for the acquisition of property, as required by section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution; and (2) whether the notification of acquisition, stating the land was acquired for "purposes of the Commonwealth," sufficiently complied with the Act's requirement to express the public purpose for which the land was acquired, particularly in light of National Security (Supplementary) Regulations.

The Court, by majority, held that the Lands Acquisition Act 1906-1936 was valid. Latham C.J. reasoned that section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution did not mandate that the valuation date for compensation must be the date of acquisition, and that section 29, which fixed the valuation date as 1 January preceding acquisition, was not so obviously unjust as to invalidate the Act. Similarly, sections 28 and 29, read together, were found to allow for the consideration of actual and potential uses of the land at the time of acquisition. The Court also found that section 40, which provided for interest at three per cent, did not render the Act invalid, nor did the absence of a specific parliamentary appropriation for compensation, as the Commonwealth was legally obligated to pay. Regarding the notification of acquisition, the Court found that while section 15(2) of the Lands Acquisition Act ordinarily required a specific public purpose to be expressed, Regulation 72A of the National Security (Supplementary) Regulations, which deemed "purposes of the Commonwealth" to be a sufficient expression of purpose, was validly made under the National Security Act and had overriding effect. This regulation validated the notification in question.

Consequently, the Court allowed the demurrer, refused the motion for an interlocutory injunction, and dismissed the action with costs. The Court found that the plaintiff's objections to the validity of the Act and the notification of acquisition failed.

Orders