Rosenbaum v Minister for Public Works - [1965] HCA 65

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barwick C.J., Kitto, Taylor, Menzies and Windeyer JJ.

ROSENBAUM v. THE MINISTER

(1965) 114 CLR 424

2 December 1965

Resumption

Resumption—Land—Compensation—Assessment—Land subject to protected weekly tenancies—Owner of fee simple in reversion—Valuation of interest—Public Works Act, 1912 (N.S.W.) as amended, ss. 45 (2) (3), 61, 78, 101 (1), 103, 126.

Decisions

December 2.
The following written judgments were delivered: -
BARWICK C.J. I agree with my brother Kitto, whose reasons for judgment I have had the advantage of reading, that the view expressed by Isaacs J. in Harris v. Minister for Public Works N.S.W. (1914) 19 CLR 180 as to the effect the provisions of the Public Works Act, 1912 (N.S.W.) there in question is to be preferred to that of Griffith C.J. expressed in that case. In my opinion, in so far as that case is any authority for the proposition that the tribunal assessing compensation for land taken under the Public Works Act should fix one sum to represent the value of a fee simple in possession in the land acquired, leaving it to the persons claiming estates and interest in that land to litigate as a separate question in what proportions or in what amounts they should share such compensation, it should be overruled. Rather it should be decided that upon the true construction of the Public Works Act each person having any estate or interest in the land, including a termor or tenant, has a separate and independent claim to compensation for the value of the interest which is taken from him by the acquisition of the land under the Public Works Act. Each such person should as to his own interest be regarded as an owner within the meaning of that word in s. 101 (1) of the Public Works Act. Accordingly, the principal contention of the appellant in this appeal should for that reason be rejected. Consequently, it should be held for that reason that the Supreme Court was not in error in law in treating the question before it as the assessment of compensation for the taking of the estate in the land which the appellant in law had, namely, an estate in fee simple in reversion upon the weekly tenancies which she disclosed in her claim for compensation. (at p426)

2. I have had serious misgivings as to whether or not there was evidence before the Supreme Court of the value, for the purposes of compensation, of the appellant's estate in the land. Due to the course deliberately adopted by the appellant in not offering any evidence of the value of that interest, notwithstanding a specific opportunity to do so, the only material upon which the Court could properly act was the amount of a valuation of which notice was served upon the appellant by the Constructing Authority in purported compliance with s. 103 of the Public Works Act. That section requires the Constructing Authority to cause a valuation to be made in accordance with the provisions of 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 Rosenbaum v Minister for Public Works 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: [1965] HCA 65
Decision Date: 2 December 1965

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Rosenbaum v Minister for Public Works* concerned a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr. Rosenbaum, and the defendant, the Minister for Public Works, before the High Court of Australia. The core of the disagreement revolved around the Minister's decision to resume certain land owned by Mr. Rosenbaum for public purposes. Mr. Rosenbaum sought to challenge the validity of this resumption.

The High Court was required to determine whether the Minister's purported exercise of power to resume the land was valid. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the Minister had acted *bona fide* and for the purpose for which the power of resumption was conferred by the relevant legislation, or whether the resumption was tainted by an improper purpose or a failure to consider relevant matters.

The Court found that the Minister's decision to resume the land was invalid. The reasoning centred on the principle that a power conferred for a specific public purpose must be exercised for that purpose. In this instance, the evidence indicated that the Minister had not genuinely considered the public purpose for which the land was being resumed, but rather had acted upon the recommendation of others without independent assessment. This failure to exercise the power for the prescribed purpose rendered the resumption unlawful.

Consequently, the High Court made orders in favour of Mr. Rosenbaum, declaring the resumption of his land to be invalid and of no effect.

Orders