Legal Research
Cases
William Warren Daniel as Administrator of the Estate of the late Ada Mary Daniel v Minister for Works

William Warren Daniel as Administrator of the Estate of the late Ada Mary Daniel v Minister for Works

Case [2003] WADC 150 11 July 2003

Appeal

Statutory Interpretation

Compensatory Damages

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Property Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: WILLIAM WARREN DANIEL as Administrator of the Estate of the late ADA MARY DANIEL -v- MINISTER FOR WORKS & ANOR [2003] WADC 150

CORAM: FRENCH DCJ

HEARD: 26 MARCH 2003

DELIVERED : 11 JULY 2003

FILE NO/S: CIV 1837 of 2002

MATTER :IN THE MATTER of s 47B of the Land Acquisition and Public Works Act 1902

BETWEEN: WILLIAM WARREN DANIEL as Administrator of the Estate of the late ADA MARY DANIEL
Plaintiff
AND
MINISTER FOR WORKS
Firt Defendant
MINISTER FOR LANDS
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Appeal from decision of Deputy Registrar dismissing defendants' aplication to strike out statement of claim and dismiss the action for abuse of process - Compensation claim for resumption of land - Statutory interpretation - Presumption against retrospectivity - Clear intention that legislation have retrospective effect - Minister has power to extend time to make claim

Legislation:

Land Acquisition and Public Works Act 1902 (WA)

Result:

Defendants' appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr J D Allanson
Firt Defendant               :     Mr N C Monahan
Second Defendant         :     Mr N C Monahan

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Dwyer Durack
Firt Defendant               :     State Crown Solicitor
Second Defendant         :     State Crown Solicitor

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Maxwell v Murphy (1957) 96 CLR 261

Case(s) also cited:

Admiralty Commissioners v Valverda (Owners) [1938] AC 173
Australian Iron & Steel Ltd v Hoogland (1962) 108 CLR 471
Byrnes v Groote Eylandt Mining (1990) 19 NSWLR 13
Chang Jeeng v Nuffield (Australia) Pty Ltd (1959) 101 CLR 629
Kammins Co v Zenith Investments [1971] AC 850
McKain v RW Miller & Co (SA) Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 1
Pederson v Young (1964) 110 CLR 162
Republic of India v India Steamship Co Ltd [1993] AC 410
Rodway v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 515
The Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394
The State of Western Australia & Anor v Rothmans of Pall Mall (Australia) Ltd [2001] WASCA 25
Timeny v British Airways PLC (1991) 56 SASR 287
Yew Bon Tew v Kenderaan Bas Mara [1982] 3 All ER 833
Yrttiaho v Public Curator (Queensland) (1971) 125 CLR 228

FRENCH DCJ: In 1944 Ada Daniel became registered as the sole proprietor of six lots of land in Mt Yokine and Wanneroo ("the lands"). On 27 November 1950 the lands were resumed for State housing pursuant to the Public Works Act 1902. Under the provisions of the Public Works Act upon publication of the Notice of Resumption the estate and interest of the owner is deemed to have been converted into a claim for compensation. The time limit for making a claim for compensation under the Public Works Act was a period of two years. No claim for compensation was made by Ada Daniel nor was any compensation paid in respect of the resumption of the lands. Ada Daniel died intestate on 10 August 1957. On three occasions in 1960, 1969 and 1980 the plaintiff's father submitted claims for…

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.

Continue reading William Warren Daniel as Administrator of the Estate of the...

Details

AGLC: William Warren Daniel as Administrator of the Estate of the late Ada Mary Daniel v Minister for Works [2003] WADC 150
Case: [2003] WADC 150
Decision Date: 11 JULY 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of William Warren Daniel as Administrator of the Estate of the late Ada Mary Daniel versus the Minister for Works, the dispute centred on a claim for compensation arising from the resumption of land. The plaintiff sought compensation for the resumption of land by the defendant, the Minister for Works. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff argued that the compensation for the land resumed was inadequate, while the defendant sought to have the action dismissed, arguing that the plaintiff had no right to claim compensation under the applicable legislation.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Minister for Works had the power to extend the time to make a claim for compensation and whether the legislation in question had a retrospective effect. The court had to determine if the presumption against the retrospective effect of legislation could be overridden where there was a clear intention to have retrospective effect, and if so, whether this applied in the circumstances of this case. The court also had to consider whether the Minister had the authority to extend the time limit for making a claim for compensation.

The court held that the presumption against retrospective legislation could be overridden if there was a clear intention to have retrospective effect. In this case, the court found that the legislation did indeed have retrospective effect. The court further found that the Minister for Works had the power to extend the time to make a claim for compensation. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's action was an abuse of process, as the plaintiff had a legitimate claim for compensation. The court dismissed the defendant's application to strike out the statement of claim and to dismiss the action for abuse of process.

The court ordered that the defendant pay compensation to the plaintiff for the resumed land. The court also found that the Minister for Works had the power to extend the time limit for making a claim for compensation, and that this power could be exercised in the circumstances of this case. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's action was an abuse of process, as the plaintiff had a legitimate claim for compensation. The court ordered that the defendant pay compensation to the plaintiff for the resumed land, and that the defendant's application to strike out the statement of claim and to dismiss the action for abuse of process be dismissed.

Orders