Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T22:49:35.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Re Palmer and Minister for the Capital Territory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Peter Wood
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Case Note
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 1979 , pp. 197 - 202
Copyright
Copyright © 1979 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

[1979] 1 A.L.D. 183. Administrative Appeals Tribunal; Fisher J. (Deputy President), A. N. Hall (Senior Member), C. A. Woodley (Member).

References

1 [1979] 1 A.L.D. 183. Administrative Appeals Tribunal; Fisher J. (Deputy President), A. N. Hall (Senior Member), C. A. Woodley (Member).

2 The capital sum which might be expected to have been offered for the lease of the parcel of land on certain assumptions: Rates Ordinance 1967, s. 5.

3 [1979] 1 A.L.D. 183, 192.

4 No. 58 of 1977.

5 [1979) 1 A.L.D. 183, 192-193. The Tribunal went on to cite Elliott v. London Borough of Southwark [1976) 2 All E.R. 781.

6 At the time of writing the case had been reheard before the Tribunal in the light of the more detailed fact findings and reasons but the decision has not yet been handed down.

7 R. v. Gaming Board for Great Britain; ex parte Benaim and Khaida [1970] 2Q.B. 417, Schmidt v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs [1969] 2 Ch. 149.

8 Giris Pty Ltd v. F.C.T. (1969) 119 C.L.R. 365, F.C.T. v. Brian Hatch Timber Co. (Sales) Pty Ltd (1972) 128 C.L.R. 28, Kolotex Hosiery (Aust.) Pty Ltd v. Commissioner of Taxation (1975) 49 A.L.J.R. 35, Trivett v. Nivison [1976] 1 N.S.W.L.R. 312, cf. Taylor v. Public Service Board [1975] 2 N.S.W.L.R. 278; and see also the Land Board in N.S.W. cases: e.g. The Grove (Cootamundra) Pty Ltd v. Landgrove Pty Ltd [1970] 2 N.S.W.R. 333.

9 See e.g. Local Government Board v. Arlidge [1915] A.C. 120.

10 [1968] A.C. 997.

11 [1968] A.C. 997, 1053-1054 per Lord Pearce; see also Congreve v. Home Office [1976] 2 W.L.R. 291.

12 For example:

(1) Reasons inadequate:Re Poyser & Mills Arbitration [1964] 2 Q.B. 467.

(2) Reasons wrong/irrelevant considerations: Cole v. Chirnside (1880) 6 V.L.R. (L.) 68, Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture [1968] A.C. 997.

(3) Failure to state reasons: Brayhead (Ascot) Ltd v. Berkshire County Council [1964] 2 Q.B. 303.

(4) Facts stated in reasons false.

(5) Reasons given were not the real reasons-fraud: Givandan & Co. Ltd v. Minister of Housing and Local Government [1967] 1 W.L.R.250.

(6) Errors on face of the record attracting certiorari: R. v. Minister of Housing and Local Government; ex parte Chichester R.D.C. [1960] 1 W.L.R. $87.