The Commonwealth v Milledge [1953] HCA 6

The Commonwealth v Milledge [1953] HCA 6

The Supreme Court judgment could not stand because the trial judge adopted erroneous valuation methods, including treating expert opinions by an averaging or group consequence approach, making an allowance for the fall in purchasing power after the statutory valuation date, and adding £1,000 for business disturbance where the land had been valued as market-gardening land rather than for the respondent's actual dairy and racing stud use; the Commonwealth's offer was not a proper admission supporting that disturbance item.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Compensation for Compulsory Acquisition of Land Under the Lands Acquisition Act 1906 1936 Cth. / High Court Appeal From Judgment of the Supreme Court of South Australia (mayo J.)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; verdict and judgment of the Supreme Court set aside; new trial ordered; no order as to costs of the appeal.
Legal Topics
['compensation for Resumed Land' 'unimproved Value' 'business Disturbance' 'land Sales Control' 'purchasing Power of Money' 'new Trial']
['compulsory Acquisition' 'land Valuation' 'constitutional Law'] ['compensation for Resumed Land' 'unimproved Value' 'business Disturbance' 'land Sales Control' 'purchasing Power of Money' 'new Trial']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal Concerning Compensation for Compulsory Acquisition of Land Under the Lands Acquisition Act 1906 1936 Cth. / High Court Appeal From Judgment of the Supreme Court of South Australia (mayo J.)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in assessing the unimproved value of the resumed freehold land.' 'Whether compensation could be increased because of a fall in the purchasing power of money between the statutory valuation date and judgment.' "Whether business disturbance compensation could be added where the land was valued on the basis of a more profitable use than the respondent's actual dairy and racing stud use." "Whether the Commonwealth's offer of £1,000 for compensation including loss of trade and sale expenses was an admission justifying an award for business disturbance."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court judgment could not stand because the trial judge adopted erroneous valuation methods, including treating expert opinions by an averaging or group consequence approach, making an allowance for the fall in purchasing power after the statutory valuation date, and adding £1,000 for business disturbance where the land had been valued as market-gardening land rather than for the respondent's actual dairy and racing stud use; the Commonwealth's offer was not a proper admission supporting that disturbance item.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; verdict and judgment of the Supreme Court set aside; new trial ordered; no order as to costs of the appeal.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Verdict and judgment of the Supreme Court set aside.' 'Order that a new trial be had between the parties.' 'Costs of the former trial to be dealt with by the order of the court determining the action upon such new trial.' 'No order as to the costs of this appeal.']