C A MacDonald Limited v South Australian Railways Commissioner [1911] HCA 14

C A MacDonald Limited v South Australian Railways Commissioner [1911] HCA 14

The appeal is incompetent because the judgment appealed from was not a judgment of the Supreme Court, but of a Judge exercising jurisdiction as persona designata under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Amendment Act 1881 (S.A.), and thus not appealable to the High Court under section 73 of the Constitution. On the merits, the Judge was entitled to find that the land did not possess special value for use as abattoirs because any such use was so remote as to be negligible.

Parties
Appellant: C. A. MacDonald Ltd; Respondent: South Australian Railways Commissioner
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 May 1911
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From a Judgment of a Judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia to the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Compensation for Compulsory Acquisition, Jurisdiction of Supreme Court and Persona Designata, Market Value of Land, Special Adaptability in Valuation
Compulsory Acquisition Constitutional Law Compensation for Compulsory Acquisition Jurisdiction of Supreme Court and Persona Designata Market Value of Land Special Adaptability in Valuation

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C. A. MacDonald Ltd

Appellant

South Australian Railways Commissioner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From a Judgment of a Judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia to the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgment appealed from is a judgment of the Supreme Court or of a Judge as persona designata under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Amendment Act 1881 (S.A.) and whether an appeal lies to the High Court under sec. 73 of the Constitution;
  2. 2 Whether the land taken possessed special value by reason of adaptability for use as abattoirs justifying enhanced compensation.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is incompetent because the judgment appealed from was not a judgment of the Supreme Court, but of a Judge exercising jurisdiction as persona designata under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Amendment Act 1881 (S.A.), and thus not appealable to the High Court under section 73 of the Constitution. On the merits, the Judge was entitled to find that the land did not possess special value for use as abattoirs because any such use was so remote as to be negligible.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs