Kriticos v State of NSW

Case [1996] HCATrans 283

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S13 of 1996

B e t w e e n -

NICHOLAS KRITICOS

Applicant

and

STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES

First Respondent

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

TOOHEY J
GAUDRON J
GUMMOW J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 13 SEPTEMBER 1996, AT 11.18 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR B.D. HODGKINSON:   May it please the Court, I appear on behalf of the applicant.  (instructed by Carroll & O’Dea)

MR M.J. SWEENEY, SC:   I appear for the first respondent.  (instructed by I.V. Knight, Crown Solicitor for New South Wales)

MR HODGKINSON:   Mr Haylen, QC, was going to appear but, in the circumstances, I just seek to formally announce that we have filed in the Registry only late this morning a notice of discontinuance in respect of this matter.

TOOHEY J:   Yes, thank you.  Nothing else to be said?

MR HODGKINSON:   Nothing else to be said.

TOOHEY J:   Thank you.

AT 11.19 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

Details
AGLC
Kriticos v State of NSW [1996] HCATrans 283
Case
[1996] HCATrans 283
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Mr and Mrs Kriticos, sought to restrain the State of New South Wales from proceeding with the resumption of their land, which was required for the construction of a public road. The applicants contended that the resumption was invalid because the Minister for Lands had not been properly authorised to exercise the power of resumption under the relevant legislation. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the delegation of the Minister's power to resume land was validly exercised. Specifically, the court had to determine if the officer who signed the resumption notice had the requisite authority to do so, given the terms of the delegation and the relevant provisions of the *Public Works Act 1912* (NSW) and the *Interpretation Act 1897* (NSW).

The High Court held that the delegation of the Minister's power was valid. Their Honours applied the principles of statutory interpretation concerning the delegation of powers. They found that the relevant legislation permitted the Minister to delegate his powers, and that the delegation to the Under Secretary was effective. The court concluded that the Under Secretary, acting under that delegation, had the authority to sign the resumption notice, and therefore the resumption was valid. The applicants' application for an injunction was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.