Howarth v McMahon [1951] HCA 19

Howarth v McMahon [1951] HCA 19

The purported resumption was ultra vires and void because the council never intended to provide, control, and manage a club as required by statute, but merely to acquire land for on-sale to a private organization, which is not a statutorily authorised purpose.

Parties
Appellants; Plaintiffs: Alexis Howarth, Richard Victor Davis and George Christie (trustees of the Redfern Sub-branch of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia); Respondent; Defendant: Thomas Francis McMahon
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 April 1951
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Compulsory Acquisition of Land, Ultra Vires Acts, Council Powers, Resumption of Land
Administrative Law Local Government Law Property Law Statutory Interpretation Compulsory Acquisition of Land Ultra Vires Acts Council Powers Resumption of Land

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

Parties

Alexis Howarth, Richard Victor Davis and George Christie (trustees of the Redfern Sub-branch of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia)

Appellants; Plaintiffs

Thomas Francis McMahon

Respondent; Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the council had valid statutory authority to resume land for the stated purpose under the Local Government Act 1919-1948 (N.S.W.) and Public Works Act 1912 (N.S.W.).
  2. 2 Whether the council could lawfully sell the resumed land to a private ex-servicemen's organization.
  3. 3 Whether the stated purpose in the Gazette notification sufficed to justify the resumption.

Ratio Decidendi

The purported resumption was ultra vires and void because the council never intended to provide, control, and manage a club as required by statute, but merely to acquire land for on-sale to a private organization, which is not a statutorily authorised purpose.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.