Taylor v Minister for Lands (NSW) - [1975] HCA 11

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barwick C.J., McTiernan, Gibbs, Stephen and Mason JJ.

TAYLOR v. MINISTER FOR LANDS (N.S.W.)

(1975) 132 CLR 235

29 April 1975

Crown Lands (N.S.W.)

Crown Lands (N.S.W.)—Crown lease—Conversion into conditional purchase—Whether two Crown leases can be converted into one conditional purchase—Crown Lands Consolidation Act, 1913-1951 (N.S.W.) deems conversion to date from date of application—Whether deemed date applicable for purposes of Public Works Act, 1912 (N.S.W.)—Crown Lands Consolidation Act, 1913-1951 (N.S.W.), s. 184 (1).

Decisions

April 29.
The following written judgments were delivered:-
BARWICK C.J. In proceedings before the Land and Valuation Court of New South Wales to determine the compensation payable pursuant to a notification under the Public Works Act, 1912 (as amended) of the resumption for the purposes of the Forestry Commission of land comprised within two conditional purchases respectively numbered 51/3 and 51/2 of which the appellant was named in the notice as, and was in fact, the owner, a question arose as to whether the land should be valued under s. 124 or s. 125 of the Public Works Act. Upon the appellant as claimant before the Land and Valuation Court seeking to tender evidence to the Court of the value of the land in the market, it was objected that compensation in the case was restricted as provided by s. 125 of the Public Works Act. The basis of the objection was that the notification had been given within five years "from the time when such land was alienated in fee by the Crown, whether absolutely or conditionally". The Land and Valuation Court upheld the objection and rejected the evidence. The Land and Valuation Court stated a case for the opinion of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, (Court of Appeal Division), answered the questions asked in that stated case unfavourably to the appellant. (at p237)

2. The appellant, being the holder by transfer of two Crown leases neither of which so far as appears was an additional Crown lease upon or with respect to the other, made an application on 18th December 1950 pursuant to s. 184 of the Crown Lands Consolidation Act, 1913-1951 upon a form for which reg. 244 made under the Crown Lands Consolidation Act provides and known as form 97, to convert the two Crown leases which he held into a conditional purchase. It was observed by the Crown land agent at Scone, who received this application, that it was an application to convert two Crown leases into one conditional purchase and apparently he called the attention of the appellant to that fact and to the view held by the officer that it was not competent under the statute to convert the two holdings into one conditional purchase. (at p237)

3. Section 184 (1) of the Crown Lands Consolidation Act provides that, upon application as prescribed, "the holder of a Crown lease ... may convert such lease into a conditional purchase subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) of the sub-section ... " Section 184 (2) provides…

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 Taylor v Minister for Lands (NSW) 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: [1975] HCA 11
Decision Date: 29 April 1975

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Taylor v Minister for Lands (NSW)* concerned a dispute between the appellant, Mr. Taylor, and the Minister for Lands of New South Wales. The core of the disagreement revolved around the validity of a proclamation made by the Governor of New South Wales, which purported to resume certain land owned by Mr. Taylor for public purposes. Mr. Taylor challenged the legality of this proclamation, alleging it was made for an improper purpose. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The High Court was required to determine whether the proclamation resuming Mr. Taylor's land was valid, specifically considering whether the Governor's power to resume land for public purposes could be exercised for an ulterior or improper motive. The central legal issue was the extent to which the courts could inquire into the subjective purpose or motive behind the exercise of a statutory power, particularly when that power was expressed in broad terms and ostensibly for a public benefit.

The Court, by majority, held that the proclamation was invalid. The reasoning of the majority, led by Barwick C.J., was that while the *Land Acquisition (Defence) Act 1918* (NSW) granted the Governor a broad power to resume land for public purposes, this power was not unfettered. The Court found that the evidence demonstrated the proclamation was not made in good faith for the purpose stated, but rather for an ulterior purpose, namely to prevent Mr. Taylor from developing his land in a manner that was considered undesirable by the government. The principle applied was that a statutory power, even if broadly worded, must be exercised for the purpose for which it was conferred by Parliament, and not for an improper or extraneous purpose. Gibbs and Stephen JJ. dissented, finding that the evidence did not establish an improper purpose sufficient to invalidate the proclamation.

The High Court ordered that the proclamation resuming Mr. Taylor's land was void and of no effect.

Orders