Duncan v Daniels [1908] HCA 36

Duncan v Daniels [1908] HCA 36

The brick wall of a house, even if used for exhibiting advertisements, does not constitute a 'hoarding' under the relevant statutory provision, thus a licence was not required in this circumstance.

Parties
Informant: John Duncan; Defendant: J. Daniels
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 June 1908
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Special leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Hoardings and Advertising, Interpretation of 'wall' in Statute, Power of Municipal Councils
Local Government Law Statutory Interpretation Hoardings and Advertising Interpretation of 'wall' in Statute Power of Municipal Councils

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Duncan

Informant

J. Daniels

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the brick wall of a house constitutes a 'hoarding' under the Sydney Corporation Amendment Act 1905 for the purpose of requiring a licence for advertisements

Ratio Decidendi

The brick wall of a house, even if used for exhibiting advertisements, does not constitute a 'hoarding' under the relevant statutory provision, thus a licence was not required in this circumstance.

Court Disposition

Special leave to appeal refused