Wheeler v Kelly

This case involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellants, Alice Ann and Alan George Wheeler, were the registered proprietors of land at Narrabeen, New South Wales, which was resumed by the Governor in Council for the extension of the War Veterans' Home. The respondents included a nominal defendant for the Government of New South Wales, the Registrar-General of New South Wales, and War Veterans' Home, a company limited by guarantee established for the maintenance of homes for war veterans. The appellants sought declarations that the resumption and the preceding notifications were invalid.

The primary legal issues before the court were the interpretation of section 5 of the Crown Lands Consolidation Act 1913-1948 (N.S.W.), which defined "public purpose," and its application to section 197 of the same Act, which conferred power to resume land. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Minister for Lands had the power to declare War Veterans' Home a public purpose within the meaning of section 197, and whether the subsequent resumption for the extension of the Home was valid. The appellants argued that the definition of "public purpose" in section 5 was too restrictive to apply to section 197, and that the phrase "for any public purpose" in section 197 should be interpreted narrowly, possibly ejusdem generis with the preceding enumerated purposes.

The Court reasoned that the definition of "public purpose" in section 5 was not intended to be restrictive. It held that the phrase "in addition to any purpose specified" meant "as well as," and that the word "any" indicated a hypothetical or contingent application, meaning "in addition to a purpose, if there be one specified." The Court found no sufficient reason to exclude the application of this definition to section 197. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that "land of any tenure" in section 197 was limited to tenures created by the Crown Lands Consolidation Act, concluding it included freehold land. The contention that "for any public purpose" should be read ejusdem generis with the preceding specific purposes was also dismissed, as the Court found no basis for implying such a restriction. The Court concluded that if a purpose could be fairly regarded as a public purpose, a bona fide declaration by the Minister would be conclusive, and that the War Veterans' Home could reasonably be considered a public purpose.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.