Minister for Public Works v Duggan

The plaintiffs, owners of certain lands, sought injunctions against the Council of the Municipality of Kogarah and the Minister for Public Works and Local Government. The dispute concerned the Council's proposed resumption of land for the purpose of "improvement and embellishment of the area" under the Local Government Act 1919 (N.S.W.). The Council intended to reclaim mangrove swamps and acquire foreshore lands to construct a park and a new road. Crucially, the Council also planned to re-subdivide and sell lands acquired in excess of its immediate needs to offset the cost of the scheme. The matter came before the High Court of Australia on appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Council was empowered by the Local Government Act 1919 (N.S.W.) to acquire land not strictly necessary for the stated public purposes of improvement and embellishment, with the intention of re-selling the surplus land for profit to fund the scheme. The plaintiffs contended that such acquisition constituted an abuse of the Council's statutory powers and would cause them irreparable loss.

The High Court, affirming the decision of the Supreme Court, held that the Council was not empowered to acquire land in excess of its actual requirements for the sole purpose of re-selling it to recoup costs. The Court applied the principle established in *Thompson v. Council of the Municipality of Randwick* (1950) 81 C.L.R. 87, which held that a local council's power of resumption under the Act was limited to acquiring land for genuine statutory purposes and did not extend to acquiring land for speculative resale at a profit. The Court found that the Council's intention to profit from the resale of surplus land rendered the proposed resumption of the plaintiffs' properties invalid.

The appeals by the defendants were dismissed, and the injunction granted by the Supreme Court, restraining the defendants from taking further steps to effect the resumption of the plaintiffs' land in connection with the Oatley Bay Improvement Scheme, was affirmed.