Brisbane City Council v Attorney General for Queensland
Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
Judgment Date | 1978 |
Date | 1978 |
Court | Privy Council |
Australia - Queensland - Charity - Charitable purposes - Conveyance to council on conditions - Area to be set aside for “show-ground, park and recreational purposes” - Whether question to create trust - Whether exclusively charitable - Earlier planning consent appeals - Whether question of trust res judicata
In 1938 the trustees of a society whose main function was to organise a district annual show conveyed about 20 acres of land to Brisbane City Council in consideration of the council's discharging a debt of £450 owed by the society and on the following conditions (recorded in the minutes of the council and in a letter of October 25, 1937, from the council to the trustees):
“(a) the area to be set apart permanently for show-ground, park and recreation purposes, (b) the show ring to be levelled off; (c) the show society to be granted the exclusive use of the ground without charge for a period of two weeks in each and every year, for the purposes of and in connection with the district annual show.”
In 1970 developers applied under the
On appeal by the council and the developers to the Judicial Committee: —
Held, dismissing the appeal, (1) that the terms of paragraph (a) of the conditions that the land was to be set apart permanently for specified purposes showed unequivocally an intention to create a trust for the purposes specified binding on the land in the council's hands and, there being nothing in paragraphs (b) and (c) inconsistent with that intention, the council had acquired the land as trustee (post, p. 304E–F).
(2) That, since on the trial judge's findings a “show” operated in Queensland to encourage agriculture, a trust for “show-ground purposes” could properly be construed as a trust for the promotion of agriculture and as such was a charitable activity beneficial to the community within the fourth head of Pemsel's case and, therefore, since on authority “park and recreational purposes” were also charitable objects, the purposes specified in paragraph (a) of the conditions were exclusively charitable and the land was subject to a valid and enforceable public charitable trust and that that validity was not impaired by the terms of paragraph (c) which permitted the trusts to be implemented in part by the land's being placed at the disposition of private individuals (post, pp. 306B–F, 307B).
(3) That the basis of the defence of res judicata in its wider sense, by which a party was precluded from raising an issue which he could and should have raised in earlier proceedings, was that to raise such an issue was an abuse of process and that (even assuming that in the present case the existence of the trust was known at the time of the earlier proceedings and that there was the necessary identity of parties), since it would have been inappropriate to assert the existence of the trust either in the planning consent appeals or in the 1971 action against the council, the bringing of the present action was not an abuse of process and the defence failed (post, pp. 307H–308A, D–F).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of their Lordships:
Dunne v. Byrne [
Greenhalgh v. Mallard [
Hadden, In re [
Henderson v. Henderson (
Hoystead v. Commissioner of Taxation [
Income Tax Special Purposes Commissioners v. Pemsel [
Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales v. Attorney-General [
Incorporated Council of Law Reporting (Q.) v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (
Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Baddeley [
Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Yorkshire Agricultural Society [
Monds v. Stackhouse (
Spence, In re [
Yat Tung Investment Co. Ltd. v. Dao Heng Bank Ltd. [
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Ashton's Estate, In re [
Attorney-General v. Proprietors of Bradford Canal (
Attorney-General v. Southampton Corporation (
Associated Minerals Consolidated Ltd. v. Wyong Shire Council [
Alexandra Park Trustees v. Haringey London Borough (
Barby v. Perpetual Trustee Co. Ltd. (
Bones, In re [
Brunsden v. Humphrey (
Crystal Palace Trustees v. Minister of Town and Country Planning. In re Town and Country Planning Act 1947 [
Congregational Union of New South Wales v. Thistlethwayte (
D'Aguiar v. Inland Revenue Commissioner (unreported), January 19, 1970,
Dingle v. Turner [
Erlanger v. New Sombero Phosphate Co. (
Hadaway v. Hadaway [
Harpur's Will Trusts, In re [
Hood, In re [
Inland Revenue Commissioners v. City of Glasgow Police Athletic Association [
Kok Hoong v. Leong Cheong Kweng Mines Ltd. [
Leahy v. Attorney-General (N.S.W.) [
Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd (
Lysons v. Commissioner of Stamp Duties [
Mitford v. Reynolds (
Morgan v. Wellington City Corporation [
Murray v. Thomas [
New Brunswick Rail Co. v. British and French Trust Corporation Ltd. [
Nightingale v. Goulbourne (
Oxford Group v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [
Royal National Agricultural and Industrial Association v. Chester (
St. Mary Magdalen, Oxford v. Attorney-General (
Schebsman, In re [
Schellenberger v. Trustees Executors and Agency Co. Ltd. (
Smith, In re [
Smith v. Kerr [
Stratton v. Simpson (
Trades House of Glasgow v. Inland Revenue,
Tribune Press, Lahore (Trustees) v. Income Tax Commissioners, Punjab, Lahore [
...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Loh Holdings Sdn. Bhd. v Peglin Development Sdn. Bhd. and Another
- Hong Leong Finance Bhd and Another; Kluang Wood Products Sdn Bhd and Another
- Talbot v Berkshire County Council
-
Re Greenpeace of New Zealand Inc.
...members of the Court of Appeal agreed. The Privy Council declined to follow this approach in the Australian case Brisbane City Council v Attorney General for Queensland [1979] AC 411 (PC), preferring to “follow the route of precedent and analogy in the present appeal”: at 48 Jones, above n......
-
DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF JURISDICTION CLAUSES
...the first time a question which has not previously been adjudicated upon. Also, in Brisbane City Council v Attorney General for Queensland[1979] AC 411 at 425, Lord Wilberforce, giving the advice of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, explained that the true basis of the rule in He......
-
Reputation in Trade Mark Infringement: Why Some Courts Think it Matters and Why it Should Not
...59 Ibid [53]. 60 John Dyson Heydon, Cross on Evidence (8th ed, 2010) [3025]. 61 Brisbane City Council v Attorney-General for Queensland [1979] AC 411, 423. 252 Federal Law Review Volume 38 ____________________________________________________________________________________ It is the precisi......