Williams v Attorney-General for New South Wales

The case of *Williams v Attorney-General for New South Wales* involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the use of Government House and its grounds in Sydney. The Attorney-General for New South Wales, on the relation of certain citizens, filed an information against a nominal defendant representing the Government of New South Wales. The relators sought a declaration that the property was permanently dedicated to the public purpose of a residence for the Sovereign's representative and an injunction to prevent its diversion to other uses.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the land in question constituted "waste lands of the Crown" under the *New South Wales Constitution Act 1855*, and consequently, whether its control had passed to the legislature and executive government of New South Wales. The court also had to determine if the property had been so dedicated or set apart as to confer a public right against the Crown to maintain its use as a residence for the Sovereign's representative. Furthermore, the court considered the procedural question of whether the Crown, represented by the Attorney-General of New South Wales, could sue the Crown, represented by a nominal defendant, in respect of competing rights, and crucially, whether the Crown in its Imperial right was properly represented in the proceedings.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, reasoned that the land in question was "waste land of the Crown" within the meaning of the *New South Wales Constitution Act 1855*. This meant that its control and management passed to the legislature and executive government of New South Wales. The Court found that the property had not been dedicated or set apart in a manner that conferred any enforceable public right against the Crown to its continued use as a residence for the Sovereign's representative. A significant fatal defect identified was the absence of the Crown in its Imperial right as a party to the suit, as the informant's case relied on rights of the Crown of the United Kingdom, which the Attorney-General for New South Wales did not represent.

Consequently, the High Court reversed the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The information was dismissed due to the substantial defect in the representation of the Crown in its Imperial right, and on the merits, because the land was not considered to be irrevocably dedicated to the public purpose of a residence for the Sovereign's representative in a way that would bind the Government of New South Wales.