The Crown v Murphy

The appeal before the High Court of Australia concerned the compensation payable to the respondents, D.R. Murphy and Cove House, following the resumption of their land at Mon Repos Beach by the appellant. The land, zoned rural at the time of resumption on 27 August 1983, was a significant turtle rookery. The respondents had previously applied to rezone the land to residential, which would have permitted subdivision into 40 allotments, but this application was refused by the local authority due to potential detrimental effects on the rookery and the inability to provide sewerage.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was the application of section 32A of the relevant legislation to the valuation of the resumed land. Specifically, the court was required to determine whether this section, which mandates that local authorities consider the deleterious effect on the environment when approving proposals, and section 33(6A)(e)(v)(B), which requires consideration of section 32A in rezoning applications, had any bearing on the "true value" of the land for compensation purposes.

The appellant argued that these provisions were relevant to the valuation. However, the court noted that these sections primarily addressed the powers and considerations of local authorities in planning and development decisions. The Solicitor-General for Queensland conceded that section 32A might not do more than make mandatory what was already within the power of the local authority to consider. The judgment of the Full Court, which formed the basis of this appeal, was delivered by Mr Justice Connolly, with Mr Justice McPherson agreeing.