Watson's Bay and South Shore Ferry Company Limited v Whitfeld [1919] HCA 69

Watson's Bay and South Shore Ferry Company Limited v Whitfeld [1919] HCA 69

The agreement between the appellant and the Minister was invalid as it amounted to an attempt to fetter in advance the statutory discretion and public duty of the Minister and successors regarding the sale of Crown lands. Further, the arrangement to sell by auction in circumstances likely to deter competition was ultra vires. Finally, to satisfy compensation by reference to post-resumption value rather than at the time of resumption was contrary to statute and unauthorized.

Parties
Appellant; Plaintiff: The Watson's Bay and South Shore Ferry Company Limited; Respondent; Defendant: George Whitfeld (nominal defendant on behalf of the Crown)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 1919
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal to High Court of Australia From Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Crown Lands, Ultra Vires, Public Auctions, Ministerial Power, Compensation for Resumption
Administrative Law Property Law Crown Lands Ultra Vires Public Auctions Ministerial Power Compensation for Resumption

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Watson's Bay and South Shore Ferry Company Limited

Appellant; Plaintiff

George Whitfeld (nominal defendant on behalf of the Crown)

Respondent; Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal to High Court of Australia From Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister for Lands could lawfully bind himself and his successors by contract as to the sale of resumed, dedicated public park land upon revocation of dedication.
  2. 2 Whether an agreement to sell Crown land by public auction under conditions intended to deter competition and satisfy a compensation claim is ultra vires the Minister and contrary to the Crown Lands Consolidation Act 1913 (NSW).
  3. 3 Whether the agreement to accept auction proceeds as full compensation for resumed land was valid in light of statutory standards for compensation.

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement between the appellant and the Minister was invalid as it amounted to an attempt to fetter in advance the statutory discretion and public duty of the Minister and successors regarding the sale of Crown lands. Further, the arrangement to sell by auction in circumstances likely to deter competition was ultra vires. Finally, to satisfy compensation by reference to post-resumption value rather than at the time of resumption was contrary to statute and unauthorized.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.