GRIFFITHS V. THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA AND OTHERS

6.12980/45

LR Daw, Gor. Prit., Melb.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ge GRIFFITHS ve THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA AND OTHERS

JUDGMENT WILLIAMS J.

Similar issues were raised in the pleadings in this action to those in Nelungaloo, but at the hearing the plaintiff did not challenge the validity of the acquisition of his wheat by the Commonwealth under the order of 16th November 1939 or the validity of the Wheat Tax Act 1946. The parties have agreed that the evidence in Nelungaloo, so far as relevant, shall be treated ag evidence in this action. Additional evidence was given that wheat does not deteriorate for a considerable time when properly stored, apparently to support a contention that because the export value of wheat was rising at the date of acquisition, the plaintiff, but for the acquisition, might have stored his wheat and subsequently sold it at a higher price. But I do not think that this is a circumstance which I can take into account in assessing the amount of compensation to which the pleintiff is entitled under reg. 14 of the National Security (Wheat Aca¥isition) Regulations. No doubt the value to the owner of the property acquired is the value of the property with all its existing advan- tages and all its possibilities. But the possibilities referred to are, I think, generally speaking, those of putting the property to some more beneficial use in the future than the use to which it is being put at the date of acquisition. There is no evidence that the plaintiff was engaged in any business in which he could have used his wheat more profitably than by selling it. When the sole value of property is in its value for sale, I do not think that any allowance can be made for the possibility that, if a dispossesed owner is not deprived of his property, he might obtain a better price for it in the future than its value at the date of acquisition.