Minister for Lands v Charles Binnie

The Minister for Lands sought special leave to appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had overturned a decision of the Land Appeal Court. The dispute concerned the re-appraisement of rent for a conditional lease held by Charles Binnie. Section 35 of the *Crown Lands Act 1895* (NSW) permitted the Minister to refer a conditional lease for rent re-appraisement by a Land Board after the first 15 years of the lease. In this instance, the Minister signed a document referring the lease for re-appraisement on 25 August 1906, but this document was sent to the District Surveyor and retained by him until 23 May 1909, when it was submitted to the Chairman of the Land Board with a report.

The legal issues before the court were whether the transmission of the document by the Minister to the District Surveyor constituted a valid reference to the Land Board, and if not, whether any subsequent reference was made after the commencement of the *Crown Lands (Amendment) Act 1908*, which would render it out of time. The Supreme Court was required to determine if the District Surveyor was an officer of the Land Board authorised to receive such a reference on its behalf, and if the Minister's communication to his own officer could be considered a reference to the statutory tribunal.

The Supreme Court reasoned that the transmission of the document on 25 August 1906 to the District Surveyor, who was an officer of the Lands Department and acted independently of the Land Board prior to May 1909, did not constitute a reference to the Land Board. The Court found no statutory provision or established practice that would permit the Minister to bind other parties by communicating with his own officer rather than directly with the tribunal whose jurisdiction was being invoked. Consequently, the Court concluded that no valid reference had been made before the commencement of the *Crown Lands (Amendment) Act 1908*.

The High Court refused special leave to appeal, agreeing with the Supreme Court's reasoning. The Court held that the crucial question was whether the District Surveyor was an officer of the Land Board for the purpose of receiving the reference, and that the Land Appeal Court had not made a finding to that effect. The High Court affirmed that the proceedings must be initiated by a proper reference to the Board, and that the Minister's communication to his own officer did not satisfy this requirement.