Stewart v Williams

The case of *Stewart v Williams* concerned an appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales to the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Charles Gideon Stewart, was the holder of an improvement lease granted by the Crown in 1902. The lease contained a provision allowing the Governor to withdraw the whole or any part of the land for settlement purposes after ten years, with compensation only for improvements. In 1913, the Governor exercised this power and withdrew the entire leased land. Stewart sought a declaration that this withdrawal provision was *ultra vires* and contrary to the relevant Crown Lands Acts.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the specific clause in the improvement lease, which permitted the Governor to withdraw the land for settlement purposes, was authorised by the *Crown Lands Act 1895* (NSW) and its predecessor, the *Crown Lands Act 1884* (NSW). The appellant argued that the lease was intended to provide a fixed term tenure, and that the withdrawal clause fundamentally altered the nature of the leasehold, rendering it void. He contended that the statutory provisions for improvement leases, including the grant of tenant-right in improvements and the right to apply for a homestead selection, were inconsistent with a lease that could be terminated at the will of the Crown.

A majority of the High Court (Barton, Isaacs, Gavan Duffy, and Rich JJ.) held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the declarations sought. The reasoning varied among the judges. Barton J. found the lease wholly void. Isaacs J. concluded the lease was either valid or, by virtue of section 44 of the *Crown Lands Act 1895*, voidable only at the Crown's option. Gavan Duffy and Rich JJ. determined that the plaintiff was bound by the terms of the lease as granted. Griffith C.J., dissenting, found the withdrawal clause to be *ultra vires* and contrary to the statutory scheme. The Court also considered whether reasonable notice was required for withdrawal, with the majority finding no entitlement to such a declaration. The decision of the Supreme Court allowing a demurrer to the statement of claim was affirmed.