This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
Redland City Council v Kozik is a decision of the High Court of Australia.[1][2][3] The case concerned the law of restitution in Australia.[3]
Facts
editRedland City Council had collected around $10m through special rates from landholders on a waterfront, for the purpose of nearby construction works. It was later found that the special rates were unlawful and invalid.[1][3]
After the landholders sued to obtain their money back, the council attempted to argue that it should be allowed to keep part of the money collected which it had already spent on some of the construction works.[3]
Judgement
editThe High Court in 3–2 majority held that the council was required to pay the full amount back. The court gave three reasons why this was required. Firstly, the council's obligation to carry out the works was independent of the legal regime for collecting the rates; secondly, the construction works didn't provide a benefit to the people the rates were collected from; and thirdly, allowing the council to keep the money would undermine the regulatory regime the council should have been following when it improperly imposed the special rates.[2][3]
References
edit- ^ a b Kerr, Judith (2024-03-14). "Landowners win 'David v Goliath' battle as High Court orders council repay millions". www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au. Archived from the original on 2024-03-20.
- ^ a b "HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA - REDLAND CITY COUNCIL v JOHN MICHAEL KOZIK & ORS" (PDF).
- ^ a b c d e "High Court determines principle of restitution law | News | Banco Chambers". www.banco.net.au. Retrieved 2024-03-20.
 | This law-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |