ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Local Government - Registration of place of amusement-Discretion of Municipal
Council-Mandamus - Local Government Act 1903 (Vict.) (No. 1893), sec. 197; Thirteenth Schedule, Part VI. MELBOURNE, May 26, 27,
A Municipal Council had adopted Part VI. of the Thirteenth Schedule to 30,31, June 1.
the Local Government Act 1903 (Vict.) which requires the occupier of any ground in which public amusements are conducted to register the ground each year, imposes a penalty upon the causing or permitting of any public amusement on an unregistered ground, and provides that the Council on the application of the occupier may, if they see fit, cause any ground to be registered and grant a certificate of registration thereof.
Held, that mandamus would lie to compel the Council to exercise their discretion as to granting or refusing an application for registration.
Held, also, that in exercising their discretion the Council might properly take into consideration the facts that the ground sought to be registered
adjoined a public house of which the applicant was the licensee, that the applicant intended to use the ground for the purpose of making money for himself, and that the ground if licensed would enter into competition with a public recreation ground of which some of the councillors were trustees and on which the Council had spent money of the municipality.
Per Higgins J.: - No duty is imposed on the councillors to "hear and determine" in the judicial sense and Semble, if the councillors took grounds into consideration which ought not to have been taken, mandamus to hear and determine is not the appropriate remedy. The councillors are in a position analogous to that of trustees.
Decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria (R. v. Town of Northcote (1909) V.L.R., 492; 31 A.L.T., 106) affirmed.
APPEAL from the Supreme Court of Victoria.
On the application of John James Randall an order nisi was issued calling upon the Council of the Town of Northcote to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue commanding the Council to register at the office of the Council a piece of ground known as the Croxton Park Recreation Reserve as a ground on which public amusements might be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1874 as adopted by the by-laws of the town, and to issue to Randall a certificate of such registration in accordance with law; or in the alternative commanding the Council to hear and determine according to law the application of Randall to the Council for the registration of the Croxton Park Recreation Reserve as a ground in which public amusements might be conducted in accordance with such pro- visions. On the return of the order nisi the matter was referred to the Full Court.
From the affidavits it appeared that Randall was the owner of five acres of land in the Town of Northcote…
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.
Continue reading Randall v Northcote Corporation
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Randall v Northcote Corporation [1910] HCA 25
Case
[1910] HCA 25
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of *Randall v Northcote Corporation* involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant, John James Randall, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Northcote Corporation Council to register his land, known as Croxton Park Recreation Reserve, as a place for public amusements and to issue a certificate of registration. Alternatively, Randall sought an order compelling the Council to hear and determine his application according to law.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Council had failed to exercise its discretion in accordance with the law when it refused to renew Randall's registration for his sports ground. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the Council had taken into consideration matters that were outside the scope of their legal authority, thereby vitiating their decision and amounting to a refusal to exercise jurisdiction. The Court also considered the nature of the discretion granted to municipal councils under the *Local Government Act 1903* (Vic.) and its associated schedules.
The High Court affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court, holding that mandamus would not lie. The Court reasoned that while the Council's power to grant registration was discretionary, this discretion had to be exercised according to the rules of reason and justice, not private opinion or humour. The Court examined the reasons provided by councillors for refusing Randall's application. It concluded that considerations such as the proximity of the sports ground to Randall's hotel, the fact that Randall intended to profit from the ground, and the potential competition with a municipal recreation ground were all matters that the Council could legitimately take into account when exercising its discretion. The Court found no evidence that the Council had acted dishonestly or had declined to exercise its jurisdiction; rather, it had considered the application and made a decision based on factors it was entitled to consider.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The High Court found that the Council had not failed to exercise its discretion, nor had it taken into account irrelevant considerations to such an extent that its decision was legally invalid. Therefore, the appellant had not established grounds for a writ of mandamus to compel the Council to grant the registration.