W H Blakeley and Co Pty Ltd v Commonwealth - [1953] HCA 12

W. H. BLAKELEY &CO. PROPRIETARY

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

DEFENDANTS.

AND ANOTHER ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE COMMON-

WEALTH OF AUSTRALIA R.T. COMPANY PROPRIETARY LIMITED

RESPONDENTS.

AND OTHERS Constitutional Law (Oth.)--Acquisition of land-Statute-Validity-Statement by

Governor-General of purposes of acquisition made conclusive-" Public purposes" -Notice of acquisition-Sufficiency-The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. C. 12),

.51 (v.), (xxxi.), (axxix.)-Lands Acquisition Act 1906-1936 (No. 13 of 1906 MELBOURNE, -No. 60 of 1936), SS. 5, 13, 15 (2).

Held, that, on the proper interpretation of the Lands Acquisition Act 1906-1936, a notification by the Governor-General, under S. 15 (2) of the Act, of the purpose of an acquisition, was conclusive of the actual existence of that purpose, and that it was incidental to the power granted by S. 51 (xxxi.) of the Constitution SO to provide.

In the Gazette dated 10th June, 1948 notification was given that certain land had been acquired under the Lands Acquisition Act 1906-1936 " for the following public purpose, namely: Purposes of providing office accom- modation for Departments of the Commonwealth and authorities of the Commonwealth at Melbourne, Victoria"; and in the Gazette dated 14th October, 1948 notification was given that certain other land had been acquired under the Act " for the following public purpose, namely: Postal purposes at Melbourne, Victoria

Held, that in each notification the statement as to purpose was sufficiently specific to satisfy the requirements of S. 15 (2) of the Act. [EDITOR'S NOTE.--In the case of Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia v. R. T. Co. Pty. Ltd. and Others an appeal was lodged to the Privy Council, and on 23rd November 1953 the Privy Council dismissed the appeal. There was no appeal to the Privy Council in the case of W. H. Blakeley &Co. Pty. Ltd. V. The Commonwealth of Australia and Another.]

87 CLR 502

DEMURRERS AND QUESTIONS OF LAW raised for the opinion of the Full Court by Fullagar J.

W. H. Blakeley &Co. Pty. Ltd. v. The Commonwealth of Australia and Another.

W. H. Blakeley and Co. Proprietary Limited, a company incor- porated in the State of Victoria, commenced an action in the High Court of Australia against the Commonwealth of Australia and Wilfred Selwyn Kent Hughes, M.V.O., O.B.E., M.C., E.D., M.P. The statement of claim, delivered on 9th September 1952 was,

SO far as is relevant, as follows:

2. On and prior to 18th June 1948 the plaintiff was the proprietor of an estate in fee simple in certain pieces of land.

3. By a notification published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. 91 on 10th June 1948 the Commonwealth of Australia and one Victor Johnson the then Minister for the Interior notified that the said land together with all tanks and buildings thereon had been acquired by the Commonwealth of Australia for a public purpose stated in such notification namely purpose of providing office accommodation for the Departments of the Commonwealth and authorities of the Commonwealth at Melbourne Victoria

5. Since 10th June 1948 the defendants…

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 W H Blakeley and Co Pty Ltd v Commonwealth 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: [1953] HCA 12
Decision Date: 1 April 1953

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of W. H. Blakeley & Co. Pty. Ltd. v. The Commonwealth of Australia and Another, along with a related matter, Attorney-General of the Commonwealth v. R.T. Co. Pty. Ltd. and Others, concerned challenges to the validity of land acquisitions by the Commonwealth under the Lands Acquisition Act 1906-1936. In the first case, W. H. Blakeley & Co. Pty. Ltd. sought a declaration that a notification of acquisition of its land for "Purposes of providing office accommodation for Departments of the Commonwealth and authorities of the Commonwealth at Melbourne, Victoria" was void. In the second case, the Attorney-General sought possession of land acquired for "Postal purposes at Melbourne, Victoria," against which the respondents raised defences challenging the validity of the acquisition. Both matters came before the Full Court of the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether a notification by the Governor-General under section 15(2) of the Lands Acquisition Act, stating the purpose of an acquisition, was conclusive of the actual existence of that purpose, and whether such a provision was incidental to the Commonwealth's power under section 51(xxxi.) of the Constitution. Further, the Court had to determine if the stated purposes in the respective notifications were sufficiently specific to satisfy the requirements of the Act and the Constitution, and whether the plaintiffs/respondents were entitled to adduce evidence to challenge the stated purposes of the acquisitions.

The Court held that, on the proper interpretation of the Lands Acquisition Act, a notification by the Governor-General of the purpose of an acquisition was conclusive of the actual existence of that purpose. This was considered to be incidental to the power granted by section 51(xxxi.) of the Constitution, which permits the acquisition of property for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws. The Court found that the stated purposes in both notifications, namely "Purposes of providing office accommodation for Departments of the Commonwealth and authorities of the Commonwealth at Melbourne, Victoria" and "Postal purposes at Melbourne, Victoria," were sufficiently specific to satisfy the requirements of section 15(2) of the Act. Consequently, the plaintiffs and respondents were not entitled to adduce evidence to challenge the stated purposes of the acquisitions.

In W. H. Blakeley & Co. Pty. Ltd. v. The Commonwealth of Australia and Another, the demurrers were upheld, and the questions of law were answered in favour of the defendants. In Attorney-General of the Commonwealth v. R.T. Co. Pty. Ltd. and Others, the demurrers were also upheld, and the questions of law were answered in favour of the applicant. The Privy Council later dismissed an appeal in the latter case.

Orders