Grain Elevators Board (Vic) v Dunmunkle Shire
[1946] HCA 13(Decision by: McTiernan J)
Grain Elevators Board (Vic)
vDunmunkle Shire
Judges:
Latham CJ
Rich J
Starke J
Dixon J
McTiernan JWilliams J
Judgment date: 31 May 1946
Decision by:
McTiernan J
I agree that the appeal should be dismissed.
The question in this case arises upon s. 249 (1) of the Local Government Act 1928 Vict.. The provision says that all land shall be ratable property within the meaning of that Act except land the property of His Majesty which is unoccupied or used for public purposes.
The appellant is constituted by the Grain Elevators Act 1934 Vict.. By this legislation it is made a corporation and is made capable in law of, inter alia , purchasing and holding real and personal property for the purposes of the Act. The question in the case is whether certain land which the appellant purchased and of which it has been at all material times the registered proprietor is land the property of His Majesty which is used for public purposes. If such land is within that description it is not ratable. The appellant claims that while the land in question is at law its property, the land is in equity the property of the Crown. The words "land the property of" the Crown in s. 249 (1) include land which is the equitable property of the Crown. Hence if the appellant's claim is substantiated, the land in question is not ratable.
Section 4 (3) of the Grain Elevators Act 1934 creates a capacity in the Board to purchase or hold land only "for the purposes of the Act and subject to the Act." Hence the appellant Board holds the land now in question for those purposes and subject to those provisions. Does this make the Board a trustee for the Crown? I do not repeat the provisions of the Acts. The powers and duties given to the Board are directed to supplying the public with the service of handling grain in bulk by means of the elevator system. The Acts entrust the responsibility of carrying on this service to the Board. Under the Acts, the Board is subject to a measure of control by the Executive Government. This control is a check upon the Board in the exercise of its powers and duties. But the result of the control is not that the Board is the servant or agent of the Crown or that the service of bulk handling of grain is made a function of the Crown. It is not a tenable view that the purposes for which the Board holds the land in question under the Acts are the purposes of the Crown, or that the effect of the Acts is to make the Board a trustee of the land for the Crown.
In my opinion the appellant's claim that the land in question is the property of His Majesty fails.