Minister for Lands (NSW) v Pye [1953] HCA 7

High Court of Australia Dixon C.J. McTiernan, Williams, Fullagar and Kitto JJ. Minister for Lands (NSW) v Pye [1953] HCA 7

ORDER Appeal allowed. Order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales of 22nd July 1952 discharged. In lieu thereof order that the questions in the case stated by Sugerman J. be answered as follows: (1) (a) No. (b) No. (2) (a) Yes. (b) No. (c) No. (3) This question does not arise. Order that the case be remitted to the Land and Valuation Court. No order as to the costs of the appeal and of the case stated in the Supreme Court.

Cur. adv. vult.

The Court delivered the following written judgment:—

March 10, 1953 Dixon C.J., McTiernan, Williams, Fullagar and Kitto JJ.

The Minister for Lands of the State of New South Wales appeals by leave against the answers given by the Supreme Court of New South Wales to certain questions submitted to it in three cases stated by the Land and Valuation Court. The cases were stated in appeals by the present respondents to the latter Court against assessments of the values of three parcels of land forming together a pastoral and agricultural property of almost 40,000 acres known as the Ghoolendaadi Estate, for the resumption of which the respondents were entitled to be paid compensation by the Government of New South Wales.

In the Land and Valuation Court, Sugerman J. held that upon the true construction of the relevant legislation the value of the resumed land must be determined, not as at 1st September 1950 which was the date of the resumption, but as at 10th February 1942 when land values were notoriously much lower than they became by September 1950. The parties had agreed that the value of the subject land was only £211,629 in 1942, whereas by 1950 it was certainly much more and according to the respondents was more than £600,000. The decision of Sugerman J. therefore meant that all that the respondents were entitled to receive was a sum substantially less than the fair equivalent of the land which the Government had taken. The respondents appealed to the Supreme Court by way of case stated, and the decision of Sugerman J. was reversed. The learned Judges, (Street C.J., Owen and Herron JJ.), reached the conclusion that in the statutory provisions upon which the Government relied there was not to be found a sufficiently clear expression of intention to deprive an owner of his land in exchange for a sum of money far below its true value, and that the respondents were entitled to have their lands valued for compensation as at the date of resumption.