Palmer v Chrisp [1908] HCA 61

Palmer v Chrisp [1908] HCA 61

On the evidence, the defendant was not the occupier nor resident manager for purposes of the Pastures Protection Act 1902 (NSW), and the magistrate's factual finding in this regard stands. Special leave to appeal is refused.

Parties
Informant/appellant: Henry Edmond Palmer; Defendant/respondent: John Chrisp
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 October 1908
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court From the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Special leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Definition of 'occupier' Under Pastures Protection Act 1902 (nsw), Enforcement of Duty to Destroy Rabbits, Standing of Company and Individual as Occupier
Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Land Law Definition of 'occupier' Under Pastures Protection Act 1902 (nsw) Enforcement of Duty to Destroy Rabbits Standing of Company and Individual as Occupier

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Edmond Palmer

Informant/appellant

John Chrisp

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court From the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was an 'occupier' or resident manager under section 4 of the Pastures Protection Act 1902 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate's determination was erroneous in law

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence, the defendant was not the occupier nor resident manager for purposes of the Pastures Protection Act 1902 (NSW), and the magistrate's factual finding in this regard stands. Special leave to appeal is refused.

Court Disposition

Special leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Special leave to appeal refused