Harris v Minister for Public Works (NSW) [1912] HCA 56

Harris v Minister for Public Works (NSW) [1912] HCA 56

A new trial should not have been granted because the evidence of the affidavit as to land value in 1897 was properly rejected as irrelevant to its value in 1910; even if admitted, it would not reasonably alter the verdict. Evidence of sales of similar property was inadmissible absent proof that conditions were sufficiently comparable.

Parties
Appellant, Plaintiff: Matilda Duff Harris as executrix of George Harris, deceased; Respondent, Defendant: The Minister for Public Works (New South Wales)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 1912
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales, Motion for New Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Compulsory Acquisition, Valuation of Land, Admissibility of Evidence, Relevance, Sales of Comparable Property
Property Law Compensation Law Evidence Law Compulsory Acquisition Valuation of Land Admissibility of Evidence Relevance Sales of Comparable Property

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matilda Duff Harris as executrix of George Harris, deceased

Appellant, Plaintiff

The Minister for Public Works (New South Wales)

Respondent, Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales, Motion for New Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence of the value of resumed land given in 1897 was admissible in determining its value in 1910
  2. 2 Whether evidence of voluntary sales of similar land was admissible
  3. 3 Whether the Full Court erred in ordering a new trial on grounds of wrongful rejection of evidence

Ratio Decidendi

A new trial should not have been granted because the evidence of the affidavit as to land value in 1897 was properly rejected as irrelevant to its value in 1910; even if admitted, it would not reasonably alter the verdict. Evidence of sales of similar property was inadmissible absent proof that conditions were sufficiently comparable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order for new trial discharged
  • Motion for new trial dismissed with costs