Camberwell v Waldmann [1945] HCA 36

H.C. or A. Local Government—Road-making—Liability of frontagers—Road formed 0

1945. ad MELBOURNE,

Oct, 22, 23;

Sypyey, Dec. 3.

Latham C.J., Starke and Dixon JJ.

HIGH COURT

{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

THE MAYOR, COUNCILLORS AND CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF CAMBERWELL_ . App

PLaIntirr,

WALDMANN DEFENDANT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA.

adapted to do anything more in reference to drainage coming, than carry away surface water which came upon the land fo natural contour lines, the road did not, within the meaning of & of the Local Government Act 1928 (Vic.), "form means of .

from property adjacent."

Decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Lowe J.) by maj

on different grounds.

* Section 574 (1) of the Local Government Act 1928 (See, now, Local Government Act 1946 (Vic.), ss. 574, 575) provided: "In case—(a) Any street road lane yard or passage or other premises formed or set out on private property, or (b) Any street road lane or passage formed or set out on land of the Crown or of any public body in such manner as to form means of back access to or drainage from property adjacent" thereto, "or any part or parts of the same respec-

tively is or are not formed

otherwise made good to the of the council of the mu such council may form otherwise make good the sam part or parts thereof to the

of the council and may or after so doing recover | so doing from the own premises fronting adjoining upon such parts thereof as tobe formed , . . orm

72 C.L.R.) OF AUSTRALIA. 251

Apprat from the Supreme Court of Victoria. H.C. or A. Tn an action in the Supreme Court of Victoria the municipality ee of the city of Camberwell sought to recover from Franz Waldmann, Cauanna wines under s. 574 (1) (b) of the Local Government Act 1928 (Vic.), a share Corroratios of the cost of making good a road which had been formed and set cr inavy. out on land of the Crown and upon which the defendant's premises —— fronted. The road, which is about a mile in length, did not form means of back access to any premises adjoining or abutting upon it, nor did it form means of drainage from the premises in respect of which the defendant was assessed. Lowe J. held that s. 574 (1) (6) required the plaintiff to establish that the road formed means of back access to or drainage from " all premises which front adjoin or abut along the entire length of the road or (as the case may be) of the part comprised in the scheme," and, as this had not been established, he gave judgment for the defendant.