The Court held that the eastern portion of the claimed land was included in both R91374 (the Crown reserve for public recreation) and the 2000 lease to the Golf Club, but that the Golf Club's use and occupation was not lawful because it was inconsistent with the reserve purpose of public recreation, applying the Rutledge conditions as endorsed in Goomallee. On the construction of the gazettal notice, the Court held that extrinsic historical material from Crown Lands files was admissible to construe the boundaries of a Crown land reserve, distinguishing the stricter approach to development consents on the basis that a reserve under s 28 CLCA does not create proprietary interests analogous to Torrens title and is always subject to revocation. On the lease construction issue, the Court preferred the textual description of the property leased as 'Reserve No. R91374' over the annexed plan which both excluded parts of the reserve and included non-reserve land, finding the plan served only an identification function.
The full text is available to signed-in members.