Hope v Bathurst City Council [1980] HCA 16

Hope v Bathurst City Council [1980] HCA 16

On the facts found, the appellant's continuous, repetitive, profit-directed agistment activities, carried on since 1965 with advertising, records, pasture improvement and stock facilities, manifested the essential characteristics of a business. No other conclusion was reasonably open, so the primary judge erred in law in concluding that the use was not significant enough to amount to a business. However, the stated case did not permit final determination because questions remained whether the activities were grazing and whether the land was wholly or mainly used for that business.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Special Leave / High Court Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales (court of Appeal) on a Case Stated From the Land and Valuation Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; the Court of Appeal's order was set aside; the appeal to the Court of Appeal was allowed with costs; the stated questions were answered; and the matter was remitted to the Land and Valuation Court.
Legal Topics
['definition of Rural Land' 'whether Land Was Used for Carrying on a Business' 'question of Law and Question of Fact' 'case Stated Procedure' 'agistment and Grazing']
['local Government' 'rating and Valuation' 'statutory Interpretation' 'administrative Law'] ['definition of Rural Land' 'whether Land Was Used for Carrying on a Business' 'question of Law and Question of Fact' 'case Stated Procedure' 'agistment and Grazing']

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

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Special Leave / High Court Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales (court of Appeal) on a Case Stated From the Land and Valuation Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Land and Valuation Court erred in law in holding that it was a question of fact whether the appellant\'s activities fell within the words "business" or "industry" in s. 118 (1) of the Local Government Act, 1919.' "Whether, on the facts found and admitted, the appellant's agistment activities constituted a business." 'Whether the appellant had discharged the onus under s. 118 (7) of proving that the land was rural land.' 'Whether the land was wholly or mainly used for carrying on the business or industry of grazing.']

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts found, the appellant's continuous, repetitive, profit-directed agistment activities, carried on since 1965 with advertising, records, pasture improvement and stock facilities, manifested the essential characteristics of a business. No other conclusion was reasonably open, so the primary judge erred in law in concluding that the use was not significant enough to amount to a business. However, the stated case did not permit final determination because questions remained whether the activities were grazing and whether the land was wholly or mainly used for that business.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; the Court of Appeal's order was set aside; the appeal to the Court of Appeal was allowed with costs; the stated questions were answered; and the matter was remitted to the Land and Valuation Court.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed with costs.' 'Order that the judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) be set aside.' 'In lieu thereof, order that the appeal to that Court be allowed with costs.' 'Question 1 answered: Yes.' 'Question 2 answered: No; other issues remain to be decided.' 'Question 3 answered:...