Bull v Attorney-General (NSW) [1913] HCA 60

Bull v Attorney-General (NSW) [1913] HCA 60

By majority, the High Court held that the purported extensions of improvement leases were granted in the absence of statutory power and thus void, not merely voidable. Section 44 of the Crown Lands Act 1895 did not afford protection to transactions for which there was no underlying authority. Accordingly, the Crown was entitled to possession of the land, and the appellants were not entitled to compensation as there was no evidence of qualifying expenditure after notification that the leases were challenged.

Parties
Appellants; Defendants: Bull and Others; Respondent; Informant: Attorney-General for New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 1913
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales (in Equity) to the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (by majority); decree of Supreme Court varied.
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Crown Land Alienation, Leases and Voidable Transactions, Statutory Powers, Restitution in Equity
Property Law Crown Land Law Statutory Interpretation Crown Land Alienation Leases and Voidable Transactions Statutory Powers Restitution in Equity

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

Parties

Bull and Others

Appellants; Defendants

Attorney-General for New South Wales

Respondent; Informant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales (in Equity) to the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether improvement leases extended in 1904 without statutory authority were void or merely voidable under the relevant Crown Lands Acts.
  2. 2 Whether section 44 of the Crown Lands Act 1895 applies to leases not authorized by statute or merely to breaches of statutory requirements in otherwise proper transactions.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants were entitled to compensation or reimbursement for expenditures incurred in reliance on the impugned leases.

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the High Court held that the purported extensions of improvement leases were granted in the absence of statutory power and thus void, not merely voidable. Section 44 of the Crown Lands Act 1895 did not afford protection to transactions for which there was no underlying authority. Accordingly, the Crown was entitled to possession of the land, and the appellants were not entitled to compensation as there was no evidence of qualifying expenditure after notification that the leases were challenged.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (by majority); decree of Supreme Court varied.

Orders

  • Declaration that the indorsements on the improvement leases were void and not merely voidable.
  • Order for the appellants to deliver up possession of the land to the Crown.