St Alder v Waverley Local Council

Link copied
Case Copied 19 min read
Reported Decision: 172 LGERA 147

New South Wales


Court of Appeal


CITATION: St Alder & Ors v Waverley Local Council & Anor [2010] NSWCA 22
HEARING DATE(S): 18/02/2010
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 
8 March 2010
JUDGMENT OF: Allsop P at 1; Beazley JA at 2; Handley AJA at 3
DECISION: Appeal dismissed. The appellants jointly and severally must pay the costs of the first and second respondents.
CATCHWORDS: CROWN LANDS – alienation – lease or licence of Public Reserve – requirement for Minister’s consent – other statutory preconditions – no valid lease or licence without compliance with statute. - ESTOPPEL – no estoppel against statute – statute dealing with alienation of Public Reserve – estoppel could not create lease or licence contrary to statute.
LEGISLATION CITED: Crown Lands Act 1989 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act s 104
CATEGORY: Principal judgment
CASES CITED: Bathurst CC v PWC Properties Pty Ltd (1998) 195 CLR 566
Blount v Layard [1891] 2 Ch 678
Breen v Williams (1996) 186 CLR 71
Cudgen Rutile (No 2) Pty Ltd v Chalk [1975] AC 520
Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation (1984) 156 CLR 41
Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Kurtovic (1990) 21 FCR 193
Pratten v Warringah Shire Council (1969) 90 WN (NSW) 134
PARTIES: Appellants - Kevin St Alder & Ors
1R- Waverley Local Council
2R - State of New South Wales
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 289390/09
COUNSEL: Appellants - A W Street SC / D Hawkins
1R - T M Faulkner
2R - M G Sexton SC with Mr R Gowenlock
SOLICITORS: Appellants - Peter Livers of Slattery Thompson
1R - Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers
2R - I V Knight, Crown Solicitor
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court - Equity Division
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): SC 3416/09
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: McLaughlin AsJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 14/12/09





                          CA 289390/09

                          ALLSOP P
                          BEAZLEY JA
                          HANDLEY AJA

                          Monday 8 March 2010
ST ALDER & Ors v WAVERLEY LOCAL COUNCIL & Anor

Catchwords




      CROWN LANDS – alienation – lease or licence of Public Reserve – requirement for Minister’s consent – other statutory preconditions – no valid lease or licence without compliance with statute.

      ESTOPPEL – no estoppel against statute – statute dealing with alienation of Public Reserve – estoppel could not create lease or licence contrary to statute.

Headnote



      Bondi Park, which included the Bondi Pavilion, was a Crown Reserve within the Crown Lands Act 1989 which had been dedicated for the purpose of public recreation. The Council managed the Park on behalf of the Bondi Park Reserve Trust. The appellants, who were homeless, had been sleeping rough in the Pavilion for between two and eight years. In June 2009 the Council gave them seven days’ notice to leave. They commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court to restrain their eviction relying on informal tenancies or licences, estoppels, or threatened breaches of fiduciary duty and obtained interim relief. They appealed to the Court of Appeal from the summary dismissal of their proceedings. HELD: dismissing the appeal…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read St Alder v Waverley Local Council 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
[2010] NSWCA 22
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *St Alder v Waverley Local Council* concerned a dispute over the validity of a lease or licence granted by Waverley Local Council in relation to a public reserve. The applicants, St Alder and others, sought to establish their rights under this purported lease or licence, while the Council asserted its invalidity. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the purported lease or licence granted by the Council was valid under the relevant legislation governing public reserves, and whether the doctrine of estoppel could operate to validate an agreement that contravened statutory requirements. Specifically, the Court had to consider the preconditions for the alienation of public land, including the necessity of ministerial consent.

The Court of Appeal held that the lease or licence was invalid because it failed to comply with the statutory preconditions for the alienation of public reserves, which included the requirement for ministerial consent. The Court affirmed the principle that estoppel cannot be invoked to create a legal right or interest that is expressly prohibited by statute. Therefore, even if the Council had acted in a way that might otherwise give rise to an estoppel, such an estoppel could not overcome the statutory prohibition against the creation of a valid lease or licence without adherence to the prescribed legislative framework.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondents.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed. The appellants jointly and severally must pay the costs of the first and second respondents.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.