Munday v ACT

In *Munday v ACT*, the High Court of Australia considered a dispute between the appellant, Mr. Munday, and the Australian Capital Territory. The case concerned the validity of a notice issued by the ACT purporting to terminate Mr. Munday's leasehold interest in certain land.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the notice of termination was validly served in accordance with the relevant provisions of the *Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991* (ACT). Specifically, the court had to determine if the notice, which was sent by registered post to Mr. Munday's last known address, constituted effective service under the Act, particularly given that Mr. Munday claimed he had not received it.

Gaudron and McHugh JJ reasoned that the statutory provisions governing service of notices must be strictly adhered to. They found that while registered post was a permissible method of service, the Act required proof that the notice was sent to the correct address and that there was a reasonable expectation of delivery. The court held that the ACT had failed to establish that the address used was Mr. Munday's last known address for the purposes of the Act, and therefore, service had not been effectively effected. The appeal was allowed.