Knowles v Newcastle Corporation - [1909] HCA 72

GEORGE BARKLY KNOWLES

THE COUNCIL OF THE MUNICIPALITY

OF NEWCASTLE SYDNEY,

Local Government Act 1906 (N.S. W.) (No. 56), sec. 131 -Rateable - land-Land Nov. 23, 24,

vested in the Chief Commissioner for Railways and used for station-master's residence-Actual user of land for railway purposes.

The respondent Council, under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1906, rated certain land which was vested in the Chief Commissioner for

9 CLR 535

Railways and Tramways. The land in question was situated in Newcastle, about 200 yards from the railway station. A house which was built upon the land was occupied rent free by the station-master at Newcastle who, in the interests of the railway service, was required, as a condition of his employ- ment, to reside there, so that he might be available in cases of emergency.

Held, that the land in question was actually used for the purposes of the Government railways, or for purposes connected therewith, within the mean- ing of sec. 131 (2) of the Local Government Act 1906, and was therefore not

Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales: Knowles v. Munici- pality of Newcastle, 9 S.R. (N.S.W.), 264; 26 W.N. (N.S.W.), 68, reversed.

APPEAL from the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, by way of special case, from the decision of a magistrate, sitting as an Appeal Court under sec. 138 of the Local Government Act 1906, by which it was held that certain land in the municipality was rateable.

The special case stated as follows The Council of the Muni- cipality of Newcastle, on March 1st last gave notice to the Chief Commissioner for Railways and Tramways, by serving on him a notice of valuation, and notice to pay rate. The land valued and rated was therein described as brick house, thirty-nine feet six inches by one hundred and forty feet Scott-street. The appellant Knowles, an officer of the Chief Commissioner, appealed against this valuation and assessment on the ground that the said land is not rateable (being set apart for residence of station-master), and should therefore not be assessed. The matter came on to be heard before me on April 7th instant when it was admitted that the land was vested in the Chief Commissioner. Evidence was given in support of the appeal that the house in question was built by the Railway Commissioners over 20 years ago as a departmental residence, and had been occupied as such until February 14th last, when the appellant who, as berthing master in the employment of the Chief Commissioner, had occupied the house by virtue of his office, gave up possession in accordance with departmental arrange- ment necessitated by the appointment of an assistant station- master. That the house was being renovated and when ready

9 CLR 536

H. for occupation would be occupied by the station-master, (now

occupying the house immediately adjoining), who in the interests of the railway service was…

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 Knowles v Newcastle Corporation 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: [1909] HCA 72
Decision Date: 25 November 1909

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, George Barkly Knowles, appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the rateability of land vested in the Chief Commissioner for Railways and Tramways, upon which a house was situated. This house was occupied rent-free by the station-master at Newcastle, who was required to reside there as a condition of his employment to ensure his availability in cases of emergency for the railway service. The respondent Council had rated this land, and the appellant contended it was not rateable.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether the land, occupied by the station-master as a residence, was "actually used for the purposes of the Government railways or tramways, or for purposes connected therewith" within the meaning of section 131(2) of the *Local Government Act 1906* (NSW). This section provided an exception to rateability for land vested in the Chief Commissioner for Railways and Tramways if it met this criterion.

The High Court, allowing the appeal, held that the land was indeed used for purposes connected with the Government railways. The Court reasoned that the station-master's residence was not merely a private dwelling but an essential adjunct to the efficient operation and management of the railway service, particularly given the requirement for him to be readily available in emergencies. The fact that the house was located a short distance from the station, rather than within the station yard, did not alter the fundamental purpose of its use. The Court distinguished the present case from those concerning purely private occupation, emphasising that the station-master's occupation was mandated by the Railway Commissioners as a condition of his employment and directly facilitated the performance of his duties and the railway's operations.

Consequently, the High Court reversed the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and ordered that the appeal be allowed, finding the land not rateable.

Orders