MacDermott v Corrie

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.