Heidelberg Shire v Green [1926] HCA 1

OF AUSTRALIA. 363

{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

THE PRESIDENT, COUNCILLORS AND | RATEPAYERS OF THE SHIRE OF HEIDELBERG gS Sir en ee |

COMPLAINANT,

APPELLANT ;

AND

Me RESPONDENT. Drrenpant,

Local Government—Footpath—Kerbing, flagging, paving or asphalting—Liability of owner of adjoining land to pay half the expense—Local Government Act 1915 H.C. oF A.

(Viet.) (No. 2686), sec. 540. 1926. ~~

See. 540 of the Local Government Act 1915 (Vict.) provides that "(1) The Mersourne, council of any municipality in such manner as the council thinks fit may Feb. 19; cause to be kerbed flagged paved or asphalted the whole or from time to time Mar. 18, any portion of the footway or pathway in front of any house or ground along > any street or private street within the municipal district. (2) Half the amount Tyaaes, Higgins, of the expense thereof in respect of any portion of such footway or pathway and Starke JJ. not previously kerbed flagged paved or asphalted by the council shall be bome and paid by the owner of such house or land."

Held, by Knox C.J., Isaacs, Higgins and Gavan Duffy JJ., that the council cannot recover under the section in respect of any given area, whether such area be the whole or a portion of the footway in front of the particular premises, unless the area in respect of which the claim is made has not previously been either kerbed or flagged or paved or asphalted by the council.

A municipal council asphalted the footway in front of the respondent's premises which had previously been paved by the council but not asphalted.

Held, by Knox C.J., Isaacs, Higgins, Gavan Duffy and Starke JJ., that the council was not entitled under the section to recover from the respondent half the cost of such asphalting,

H.C, or A.

1926.

=~

SHIRE oF red Hewersere APPEAL from the Supreme Court of Victoria.