Heidelberg Shire v Green [1926] HCA 1

Heidelberg Shire v Green [1926] HCA 1

The council is not entitled under sec. 540 to recover half the cost of asphalting a footway previously paved by the council; once any operation (kerbing, flagging, paving, asphalting) has been performed, the abutting owner's liability ends for that portion.

Parties
Complainant, Appellant: The President, Councillors and Ratepayers of the Shire of Heidelberg; Respondent, Defendant: George H. Green
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 March 1926
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria, Originating in Court of Petty Sessions
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Footpath Liability, Municipal Expenses, Local Government Act Interpretation
Local Government Law Footpath Liability Municipal Expenses Local Government Act Interpretation

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The President, Councillors and Ratepayers of the Shire of Heidelberg

Complainant, Appellant

George H. Green

Respondent, Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria, Originating in Court of Petty Sessions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a municipal council can recover from an owner half the expense of asphalting a footway previously paved by the council under sec. 540 of the Local Government Act 1915 (Vict.)

Ratio Decidendi

The council is not entitled under sec. 540 to recover half the cost of asphalting a footway previously paved by the council; once any operation (kerbing, flagging, paving, asphalting) has been performed, the abutting owner's liability ends for that portion.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs