Sandringham Corporation v Rayment - [1928] HCA 13

H. C. of A.

In my opinion the question submitted should be answered in the negative, and there should be a declaration to that effect. The

1928.

Manning

appellant is to pay the costs of this appeal.

Federal

Commis

Declaration that the appellant was not.

sioner

within the meaning of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1922-1925, a trustee of the income in question. Appellant to pay costs of appeal.

Taxation.

Solicitor for the appellant, William Arnott.

Jolly v District

Solicitor for the respondent, W. II. Sharwood, Crown Solicitor for

Council of

Yorketown

rav9

the Commonwealth.

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

THE MAYOR, COUNCILLORS AND CITIZENS )

OF THE CITY OF SANDRINGHAM . j

Appellant;

Complainant,

AND

RAYMENT.............................................................Respondent.

Defendant,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

VICTORIA.

H. C. of A.

Local Government—Making streets at cost of adjoining owners—Specifications,

1928. as to work—Scheme of distribution of cost—Date for consideration and adoption by council—Notice served on owners—Defective notice—Notice for less than

Melbourne, prescribed period—Objection by owners to scheme—Objection not based on defect

May

in notice—Waiver—Estoppel—Local Government Act 1915 (Viet.) (No. 2686),

June

secs. 526-532.

Knox C.J.,

Isaacs, Higgins, A municipal council duly caused to be prepared, under Part XVIII., Division

fiavan Duffy,

Powers and

11, of the Local Government Act 1915 (Viet.), specifications, &c., in connection

Starke JJ.with the forming, &c., of a street set out on private property, and an estimate

of the cost and a scheme of distribution setting out, as required by sec. 527, an estimate of the cost and a scheme of distribution setting forth the names of the persons intended to be made liable and the amounts chargeable to the respondent and other owners of premises fronting, adjoining or abutting upon the street. The council caused to be served upon the owners a notice which complied with sec. 529 except that the date therein mentioned as the date upon which the council would proceed to consider the matter was a date less than fourteen days from the service of the notice. The council met on the date specified in the notice ; and, after considering the specifications, &c., above referred to, it adopted the scheme. The respondent was present at the meeting, but, although other objections were raised, no objection was taken to the notice. The council carried out the work and sought to recover from the respondent his proportion of the cost.

Held, by Knox C.J., Higgins, Gavan Duffy, Powers and Starke JJ. (Isaacs

dissenting), (1) that compliance with the requirement of sec. 529 as to the length of the notice was a condition of the council’s authority to execute the work at the expense of the owners; (2) that the notice given, which was insufficient, was not validated by sec. 532, as the “ notice ” referred to in that section means the notice required by sec. 529 ; (3) that on the facts the respondent had not waived his right to object…

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 Sandringham Corporation v Rayment

Details

AGLC: Sandringham Corporation v Rayment [1928] HCA 13
Case: [1928] HCA 13
Decision Date: 7 June 1928

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Victoria considered a dispute between the Sandringham Corporation and Mr. Rayment concerning the cost of making a street. The Corporation sought to recover costs from Mr. Rayment, an adjoining owner, for street works undertaken.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the notice served by the Sandringham Corporation on Mr. Rayment regarding the proposed street works and the distribution of costs was legally sufficient. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the notice complied with the requirements of the relevant local government legislation, particularly concerning the prescribed period for owners to consider and object to the scheme.

The Court found that the notice served on Mr. Rayment was defective because it provided a period for objection that was less than the period prescribed by the relevant legislation. This defect rendered the subsequent adoption of the scheme by the council invalid as against Mr. Rayment. The Court applied the principle that statutory requirements for notice must be strictly adhered to, especially when they affect the rights of individuals to object to proposed charges or works.

Consequently, the Court held that the Sandringham Corporation was not entitled to recover the costs of the street works from Mr. Rayment.

Orders