Harris v Minister for Public Works (NSW)

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales concerning the compensation awarded for land resumed by the Crown. The appellant, Matilda Duff Harris, as executrix of George Harris, sought compensation for land resumed in 1910 under the Lands for Public Purposes Acquisition Act 1880. The dispute centred on the valuation of the land at the time of resumption, with the plaintiff's witnesses providing valuations of £52,143 10s and £64,452 10s. The defendant sought to introduce an affidavit sworn by the plaintiff in 1897, stating the land's value at £14,000, and evidence of sales of similar land in the vicinity. The primary judge rejected both the affidavit and the sales evidence, and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The Full Court of New South Wales granted a new trial on the grounds of wrongful rejection of this evidence.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the affidavit sworn in 1897, stating the land's value at that time, was admissible as evidence to determine the land's value in 1910, and whether evidence of sales of similar land in the neighbourhood was admissible. The court was required to consider the relevance of past valuations and comparable sales to the current valuation, particularly in circumstances where significant changes in the locality and property values might have occurred.

Griffith C.J. and Barton J. held that a new trial should not have been granted, reasoning that the 1897 affidavit was properly rejected as there was insufficient evidence to connect its stated value to the value in 1910. They emphasised that the admissibility of such evidence depends on an inference of fact drawn from all circumstances, including changes in conditions, and that the primary judge was correct in finding no such connection. They also found that the evidence of comparable sales was correctly rejected due to a lack of evidence demonstrating the similarity of the conditions surrounding those sales to the resumption in question. Isaacs J., while agreeing that the appeal should be allowed, reasoned that although the affidavit was admissible when considered with the plaintiff's witness's testimony regarding the increase in value between 1897 and 1910, a verdict based on this evidence would have been unreasonable. He applied the principle that a new trial should not be granted if, even with the rejected evidence admitted, the verdict would have been clearly and manifestly against the weight of evidence, such that no reasonable jury could have found it.

The High Court allowed the appeal, discharged the order for a new trial, dismissed the motion for a new trial with costs, and restored the jury's verdict. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.