GARDEN ISLAND TITLE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19419, 30 August 1926, Page 10

GARDEN ISLAND TITLE.

NEW SOUTH WALES PROPERTY j. A HIGH COURT DECISION. The ownership of Garden Island was recently determined by the High Court of Australia, which, by majority, decided that the State of New South Wales was entitled to possession of the island. The State of New. South Wales claimed that Garden .Island i . Crown land, within the meaning , of " tlib:.Grown Lands •'Act of -' 1861;}'•• that portions :; of it were dedicated for "the. purpose 'of a < naval depot, under the provisions of that Act; and that on October 12, 1923, the dec.'cations were revoked by' the Minister of Lands,' whereupon the whole of Garden Island became. Crown lands. On behalf of the Commonwealth it was contended that the dedications were in perpetuity, and for tho continuous and exclusive uso of the Imperial Government for naval purposes. Tho Commonwealth Government, it was alleged/ had been chosen by the Imperial Government to use the whole of tho island for the purposes of a naval depot. *

Sir Adrian Knox, C.J., Mr. Justice Gavan Duffy, Mr. .Justice Rich, and Mr. Justice Starke, in a joint judgment, declared that the Commonwealth had failed to substantiate any material part of the patenicm of defence. The Order-in-Coun-cil, doted October 26, 1899, in which was embodied the arrangement entered into by the Imperial, Government and that of New South Wales, assumed, as was the fact, that Garden Island had been subject to some dedication. It did not dedicate Garden Island or any other lands to the use of His Majesty's Navy, but recognised an existing dedication of the island and left the dedication of the other lands to the authority for that, purpose, namely, the Government of New South Wales. If there was no Imperial legislation on which the Commonwealth could rely to establish its defence, no rights conferred by the dedication could maintain their validity in face of the revocation of October 12, 1G23. Mr. Justice Isaacs, who, with. Mr. Justice Higgins, dissented, declared that the right of possession was in the Imperial Government, and the Commonwealth was entitled to succeed. Mr. Justice Higgins expressed the opinion that there had been no valid revocation, and that the State of New South Wales was not- entitled to a judgment for 'pjcctment. •