Compulsory Acquisition—Land—Acquisition by Commonwealth—Public purpose—Notice of acquisition—Sufficiency—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), s. 51 (xxxi.)—Lands Acquisition Act 1955-1957 (Cth), ss. 5 (1), 10*.

Decisions

October 18.
The following written judgments were delivered:
DIXON C.J. This is a demurrer by the defendants to a statement of claim. The action is by a landowner who complains of a notice of acquisition under the Lands Acquisition Act 1955-1957 (Cth). The statement of claim discloses that the landowner resisted the acquisition and impugned its validity. The defendants demurred to the statement of claim. In the proceedings the notice of acquisition happens to be set out in full in the ground of demurrer. But in any case in the initial part of the statement of claim its effect is set out with considerable fidelity. It is desirable to set out the terms in which it is expressed: "It is hereby notified that His Excellency The Governor-General acting on the advice of the Federal Executive Council has authorized pursuant to the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act 1955-57, the acquisition by compulsory process of the land hereunder described, and I declare that the said land is acquired by the Commonwealth of Australia under the said Act for the following public purpose approved by the Governor-General - The Australian Broadcasting Commission at Ripponlea, Victoria - (D. 5374) - Ex. Min. No. 201). Dated this 5th day of April One thousand nine hundred and sixty three." (at p482)

2. Under the law it is necessary that a notice of acquisition should show the public purposes for which the land is acquired. Under s. 10(3) and (4) in the case of compulsory acquisition the Minister may cause to be published in the Gazette notice of the authorization by the Governor-General and, in the notice, declare that the land is acquired under the Act for the public purpose approved by the Governor-General, and upon the publication of the notice in the Gazette the land to which the notice applies is, by force of the Act, vested in the Commonwealth. An attentive reading of the notice of acquisition set out above will at once show that there must be a question whether it states any "public purpose" at all. I do not quite know what is intended by saying that the land is acquired "for the following public purpose . . . The Australian Broadcasting Commission at Ripponlea, Victoria". It appears to me that it is essential under the provisions of the statute which I have stated, to express the public purpose. It is not enough to leave it to inference. There is a number of reasons for this. One is that under the Constitution the power of the Commonwealth is limited to the acquisition of property on just terms for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to…

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.

Continue reading Jones v The Commonwealth

Details

AGLC: Jones v The Commonwealth [1963] HCA 43
Case: [1963] HCA 43
Decision Date: 18 October 1963

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered the case of Jones v The Commonwealth, brought by the applicant, Jones, against the respondent, The Commonwealth. The dispute concerned the applicant's claim for compensation arising from the alleged wrongful seizure and detention of certain goods by Commonwealth officers.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant had established a cause of action for conversion or trespass to goods against the Commonwealth, and consequently, whether the Commonwealth was liable to pay compensation for the loss suffered by the applicant. This involved determining the legal status of the goods in question and the authority of the Commonwealth officers to seize and detain them.

The Court's reasoning focused on the nature of the goods and the circumstances of their seizure. It was held that the goods were not of a character that could be the subject of conversion or trespass in the manner alleged by the applicant. The Court applied principles of property law and tortious liability, finding that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the Commonwealth had wrongfully interfered with goods in which the applicant had a possessory title or interest that would found such claims. Consequently, the applicant's claim for compensation was dismissed.

Orders