Legal Research
Cases
P J Magennis Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth

P J Magennis Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth

Link copied

Case Copied 21 December 1949 80 min read

Contents

On this page

80 CLR 382

P. J. MAGENNIS PROPRIETARY LIMITED

THE COMMONWEALTH AND OTHERS

DEFENDANTS. Constitutional Law-Rehabilitation of discharged members of the Forces-Settlement

on land-Joint scheme-Agreement between Commonwealth and a State- Acquisition of land-Just terms-Compensation-Value as at 10th February SYDNEY,

1942-Financial assistance-Commonwealth statute-Validity-State statute- Nov. 23, 24;

Operation-The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), SS. 51 (vi.), (xxxi.), (xxxix.), 96, 109-War Service Land Settlement Agreements Act 1945 (No. 52 of 1945), S. 3 (1), (2), First Schedule-Re-establishment and Employment Act 1945 (No. 11 of 1945), S. 103-Closer Settlement (Amendment) Act 1907-1948 (N.S.W.) (No. 12 of 1907-No. 48 of 1948), ss. 4, 5 (7) (e), (f), 7, 9-War Service Land Settlement Agreement Act 1945 (N.S.W.) (No. 6 of 1946), Schedule-War Service Land Settlement and Closer Settlement (Amendment) Act 1945-1948 (N.S.W.) (No. 14 of 1946-No. 48 of 1948), S. 3.

An agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of New South Wales made in order to carry into effect proposals agreed to at a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers with a view to the settlement on land in the State of discharged members of the Forces and other eligible persons, was approved by the Commonwealth Parliament by the War Service Land Settlement Agreements Act 1945, and was approved by the State of New South Wales by the War Service Land Settlement Agree- ment Act 1945. The agreement, under which both parties assumed financial and other obligations, contained a term that, for the purposes of the agree- ment, land should be acquired compulsorily or by agreement at a value not exceeding that ruling on 10th February 1942. A similar term was contained in a proviso to S. 4 (1) of the Closer Settlement (Amendment) Act 1907-1948 (N.S.W.) with respect to land acquired for the purpose of the scheme contained in the agreement. A proclamation was, prior to the approval of the agreement by the State, made under S. 4 that it was proposed to consider the advisable- ness of acquiring the plaintiff's land for purposes of closer settlement. The land had greatly increased in value since February 1942.

80 CLR 383

Held, by Latham C.J., Rich, Williams and Webb JJ. (Dixon and) McTiernan JJ. dissenting), (1) that the War Service Land Settlement Agreements Act 1945 (Cth.) was legislation with respect to the acquisition of property upon terms which were not just and was invalid; therefore (2) the War Service Land Settlement Agreement Act 1945 (N.S.W.) and the Closer Settlement (Amendment) Act 1907-1948 (N.S.W.), although not invalid, were inoperative

SO far as they related to and purported to give powers to resume lands for the purposes of the agreement.

Per Latham C.J., Rich, Dixon, Williams and Webb JJ. Legislation can be legislation with respect to the acquisition of property even though it also be legislation for other purposes with respect to which the Commonwealth Parliament has power to make laws. DEMURRER.

In an action brought in the High Court by P. J. Magennis Pty. Ltd. against the Commonwealth of Australia, the…

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 P J Magennis Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth 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: [1949] HCA 66
Decision Date: 21 December 1949

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, P. J. Magennis Pty Ltd, brought an action against the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of New South Wales, seeking declarations that certain Commonwealth and State legislation, and an agreement entered into between the two governments, were invalid. The dispute arose from a proposed compulsory acquisition of the plaintiff's land for the purpose of settling discharged members of the armed forces. The core of the plaintiff's grievance was that the agreement stipulated land acquisition at a value not exceeding that ruling on 10th February 1942, a date significantly prior to the proposed acquisition, during which the land's value had substantially increased. The Commonwealth and State governments demurred to the statement of claim.

The High Court was required to determine the validity of the War Service Land Settlement Agreements Act 1945 (Cth) and related State legislation, specifically whether these laws and the agreement they authorised were a valid exercise of legislative power, particularly in light of section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution which mandates "just terms" for the acquisition of property by the Commonwealth. A key issue was whether the Commonwealth, by entering into an agreement with the State and having the State acquire land on its behalf under terms deemed unjust by the plaintiff, could circumvent its constitutional obligation to provide just terms. The court also had to consider the effect of any such invalidity on the State legislation and the proposed acquisition.

A majority of the High Court, comprising Latham C.J., Rich, Williams, and Webb JJ., held that the Commonwealth War Service Land Settlement Agreements Act 1945 was invalid. Their reasoning was that the Act constituted legislation with respect to the acquisition of property on terms that were not just, thereby contravening section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution. Although the State legislation was not inherently invalid, the majority found that it was inoperative insofar as it related to and purported to grant powers for the resumption of lands for the purposes of the agreement, due to its connection with the invalid Commonwealth Act. Dixon and McTiernan JJ. dissented.

Consequently, the court upheld the demurrers in part. The declarations sought by the plaintiff regarding the invalidity of the Commonwealth Act and the inoperability of the State legislation in relation to the agreement were granted. The court's decision meant that the proposed acquisition of the plaintiff's land under the terms of the agreement could not proceed.

Orders