MacDermott v Corrie - [1913] HCA 27

MACDERMOTT

CORRIE AND ANOTHER, TRUSTEES OF THE

RESPONDENTS.

ACCLIMATIZATION SOCIETY OF QUEENSLAND

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

QUEENSLAND. Crown grants / -Restrictions on alienation and user of land-Resumption for public

purposes - Value of land-Basis of valuation-Arbitration-Award

The Acclimatization Society of Queensland were the grantees of land sub. ject to conditions and reservations and to extensive restrictions on the use and the alienation of it, and a right in the Crown to resume the land or any part of it which might be required at any time for any public purpose- -the value of the land resumed to be paid to the party entitled thereto at a valuation to be fixed by arbitration.

Held (Powers J. dissenting), that the value to be so fixed and paid on the resumption of the land by the Crown under the grant was the value to the Society of their interest in the land and not its value to the Crown or to those for whom the Crown was acquiring the land; and that in ascertaining such value the conditions, reservations and restrictions should be taken into con- sideration as affecting the Society's market.

Stebbing v. Metropolitan Board of Works, L.R. 6. Q.B., 37, followed. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Queensland: Inre The King and the Acclimatization Society of Queensland; Corrie and Vidgen v. MacDermott, (1913) S.R. (Qd.), 10, reversed.

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of Queensland.

17 CLR 224

In an action commenced on 16th October 1912, in the Supreme Court of Queensland, the plaintiffs, Leslie Gordon Corrie and James Grahame Vidgen, claimed as trustees of the Acclimatiza- tion Society of Queensland against P. J. MacDermott, the nominal defendant appointed to represent the Crown under the Claims against Government Act, a declaration that they were entitled to be paid the sum of £3,655, being the balance of the value of a certain piece of land resumed by the Governor in Council in accordance with the deed of grant relating to the same, and pay- ment of the said sum. A special case was stated in the matter, by consent, under Order XXXVIII., l'. 1, of the Rules of the Supreme Court (Qd.).

The special case set out (inter alia) the following facts :-By deed of grant dated 17th June 1892 certain lands in the deed of grant more particularly described were vested in trustees upon the trusts and for the purposes therein mentioned (which, SO far as material, are stated in the judgments hereunder). The plain- tiffs are the present trustees under the said deed of grant and the registered proprietors of the lands therein set forth. Certain negotiations took place between the Chief Secretary's Depart- ment of the State of Queensland and the said trustees, and the said trustees were informed it was the desire of the Government to resume a part of the said land in accordance with the powers in the said deed of grant set forth, and they were requested to waive and…

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 MacDermott v Corrie 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: [1913] HCA 27
Decision Date: 2 May 1913

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to this appeal were the trustees of the Acclimatization Society of Queensland (the respondents) and P. J. MacDermott, a nominal defendant representing the Crown (the appellant). The dispute concerned the valuation of land resumed by the Crown under a deed of grant. The Acclimatization Society held land subject to significant restrictions on alienation and use, with a right for the Crown to resume it for public purposes, requiring compensation to be fixed by arbitration. The Supreme Court of Queensland had ruled in favour of the Society, ordering judgment for a sum representing the difference between the unrestricted value of the land and the amount already paid by the Crown.

The High Court was required to determine the correct basis for valuing the resumed land. Specifically, the court had to ascertain whether the valuation should reflect the land's unrestricted market value, or its value to the Society, taking into account the existing conditions, reservations, and restrictions on its use and alienation. This involved interpreting the meaning of "value" in the context of the Crown grant and the relevant legislation governing land resumption.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the value to be paid upon resumption was the value of the Society's interest in the land, not its value to the Crown or the intended recipient of the land for public purposes. The court reasoned that in assessing this value, the conditions, reservations, and restrictions affecting the Society's ability to use or sell the land must be considered, as they directly impact its marketability and therefore its value to the owner. The court followed the principle established in *Stebbing v. Metropolitan Board of Works*, which dictates that compensation should reflect the owner's loss, tested by the value of the property to them, rather than its potential value to the acquiring authority. The umpire's finding of £7,490, representing the unrestricted freehold value, was deemed an incorrect basis for compensation.

Consequently, the High Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The court determined that the valuation should be based on the land's value to the Society, taking into account all restrictions. The matter was remitted for a determination of the value on this correct basis.

Orders