Attorney-General (NSW) v Stocks & Holdings (Constructors) Pty Ltd [1970] HCA 58

Attorney-General (NSW) v Stocks & Holdings (Constructors) Pty Ltd [1970] HCA 58

The County of Cumberland Planning Scheme Ordinance did not apply to land while it was owned by the Commonwealth; upon its transfer to the Council, no legislative act or order validly applied the scheme or interim development order to the land. The statutory framework did not permit the scheme's automatic operation...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Civil / Orders and Answers to Reserved Questions
Outcome
Reserved questions answered in the negative; defendant's contention upheld in majority.
Legal Topics
['application of State Planning Schemes to Commonwealth Land' 'exclusive Commonwealth Legislative Power Under Constitution S 52' 'property Transferred From Commonwealth Ownership' 'statutory Construction—reading Down for Constitutional Validity']
['constitutional Law' 'town Planning Law'] ['application of State Planning Schemes to Commonwealth Land' 'exclusive Commonwealth Legislative Power Under Constitution S 52' 'property Transferred From Commonwealth Ownership' 'statutory Construction—reading Down for Constitutional Validity']

Source-derived case record

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil / Orders and Answers to Reserved Questions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the County of Cumberland Planning Scheme Ordinance bound the Commonwealth as owner of the land upon enactment' 'Whether the Ordinance bound the Council after transfer from the Commonwealth' 'Whether the notification in the Government Gazette of 13th August 1965 bound the Council and subsequent owners, including the defendant']

Ratio Decidendi

The County of Cumberland Planning Scheme Ordinance did not apply to land while it was owned by the Commonwealth; upon its transfer to the Council, no legislative act or order validly applied the scheme or interim development order to the land. The statutory framework did not permit the scheme's automatic operation on land after Commonwealth ownership ceased.

Court Disposition

Reserved questions answered in the negative; defendant's contention upheld in majority.

Orders

  • ['Question (1) answered No.' 'Question (2) answered No.' 'Question (3) answered No.' "Relators to pay the defendant's costs of the argument on those questions." "Further proceedings in this Court to stand over generally with liberty to apply to restore to the list on seven days' notice."]