Two notice set | New South Wales | South Australia | Victoria | Western Australia

AI assisted, all details MUST be checked for accuracy.

These are unedited, untested, and should NOT be used without significant prior work ie notices to the local governing body, you have copy of Crown grant incidents, volume, folio etc of the original Crown grant (that your parcel may now be a portion of). Anything that is not accurate or relevant to your matter (and can be verified by fact) should NOT be used.

If you haven’t already done a set of Notices to the local governing body, you could draft them from this material.

New South Wales

[LGL-2026-03-25-3]

The NSW-specific changes required are: the Minister (Stephen Kamper MP, Minister for Lands and Property); the department address; NSW constitutional chain references; NSW LRS as the private registry operator under a 35-year concession from 1 July 2017; the Office of the Registrar General as regulator; the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW); the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW); the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW); the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) replacing FOI; the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW); the Constitution Act 1902 (NSW); the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) s 21; the Crown Land Management Act 2016 (NSW); the Consolidated Fund of NSW; NCAT replacing SAT; the NSW Ombudsman; and the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The Consolidated Account equivalent in NSW is the Consolidated Fund under s 39 of the Constitution Act 1902 (NSW). Both instruments follow.

INSTRUMENT 1 — NOTICE TO THE MINISTER FOR LANDS AND PROPERTY, NEW SOUTH WALES

FORMAL NOTICE AND DEMAND

To the Minister for Lands and Property, New South Wales

Pursuant to the Crown Land Management Act 2016 (NSW), the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), the Constitution Act 1902 (NSW), the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW), the Australian Consumer Law as applied in New South Wales by the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW), the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW), the Public Governance Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (Cth), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Magna Carta 1297, and at Common Law

FROM: [Full name], a living [man/woman], representative for [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] [Street Address] [Suburb NSW Postcode] [Email] [Phone]

DATE: [Date of Service]

TO: The Honourable Stephen Kamper MP Minister for Lands and Property Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure GPO Box 39 SYDNEY NSW 2001

RE: Final Notice — Chronic Failure by [Council Name] ABN [INSERT] (hereafter “the Council”) to Establish Crown Authority or Jurisdiction over Land Held under Crown Grant; Prior Quo Warranto Challenge and Formal Notices Unanswered; Constitutional Questions Concerning the Consolidated Fund; Continued Threats of Enforcement by a Non-Crown Body Corporate; Voluntary Contribution Tendered Directly to the Crown’s Consolidated Fund; and Demand for Ministerial Confirmation of Crown Position

Crown Grant Reference: [INSERT] Volume/Folio [INSERT] Certificate of Title Volume/Folio: [INSERT] Land Description: Lot [X] on Diagram/Plan [Y], originally conveyed by Crown Grant Volume/Folio [INSERT], presently described under Certificate of Title Volume/Folio [INSERT] (herein “the Land”) Local Government Area: [Council Name] ABN [INSERT]

Part I — Standing, Constitutional Foundation and Nature of This Notice

1. [Full name], a living [man/woman], herein the Author, acts in the capacity of representative for [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS], holder of the full fee simple estate in the Land — being the most extensive estate known to law, conferring every act of ownership which can enter into the imagination, both at law and in equity — originally conveyed by Crown Grant issued by the Crown in its sovereign and prerogative capacity on or about [DATE/DECADE] (the “Crown Grant”). That grant was a direct act of the Crown as sovereign, predating and standing above all subsequent statutory instruments, and conveying to the registered proprietor specific and express incidents of title that are not capable of extinguishment, modification, or variation except by the Crown itself acting through express and unambiguous legislative authority. The Author notes that the Land has at no time changed in its physical boundaries or extent, yet the registration description has been altered from the original Crown Grant Volume/Folio [INSERT] to a Certificate of Title under a different Volume/Folio [INSERT] — a change effected not by the Crown, but by a body corporate operating as a land registry agency — such that the incidents of the original Crown Grant, which remain the paramount and governing title instrument, have been dropped or altered in the Certificate of Title without Crown authority. The Author reserves all rights, legal, beneficial, and equitable, in relation to the Land and this Notice.

2. The Author draws the Minister’s attention to a precise textual matter of constitutional significance bearing upon the nature of the Crown whose authority is invoked by every body asserting obligations over the Land. The Royal Style and Titles Act 1953 (Cth), s 4(1), gave the Parliament’s assent to the adoption of the royal title “for use in relation to the Commonwealth of Australia and its Territories.” The Commonwealth of Australia is the indissoluble federal Commonwealth constituted by the union of peoples under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp) — a political union of persons, not a geographic description. The Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 (Cth), s 2(1), changed that formula. It gave assent to the adoption of a new title “for use in relation to Australia and its Territories.” The word “Australia” in that Act is a geographic designation — the land mass and its dependent territories — not the constitutional political union of people. The title “King of Australia” was therefore created by statute in 1973 for use in relation to a geographic location, postdating the Crown Grant by decades. Every body that now asserts authority over the Land does so by derivation from that 1973 statutory designation. The Crown that issued the Imperial Crown Grant acted in its prerogative capacity before Federation, before the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp), and before any statutory Australian title existed. That prerogative act stands prior to and above the entire statutory chain that follows it.

3. The Author draws the Minister’s particular attention to the direct and special authority of the High Court’s ruling in Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] HCA 34; (1923) 33 CLR 1 in this State. The lands at issue in that case included land in New South Wales alienated by Crown grant as early as 1 May 1849 and 30 June 1823 — Crown grants of this State, on facts directly equivalent to those of the present matter. The High Court held that a title derived from a law superior to State law is wholly independent of State registration laws and State laws of any kind. That ruling is not merely persuasive analogy from another jurisdiction — it arose from this State’s own Crown grant land and is of the highest direct authority over the Land the subject of this Notice.

4. This Notice is the culmination of a chronological sequence of formal jurisdictional and authority challenges — each served upon the Council by registered mail, each demanding that the Council demonstrate by what Crown authority it asserted jurisdiction over the Land and claimed financial obligations from [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] as registered proprietor, and each met with silence, with demands for performance of obligations whose authority has never been established, or with threats of legal action and ultimately the threatened taking and selling of the Land in lieu of any lawful answer. It is not a complaint. It is not a request. It is a formal constitutional demand addressed to the Minister for Lands and Property as the officer of the Crown with lawful authority and responsibility for the integrity of Crown grants and the land title system in New South Wales.

5. The Crown, for the purposes of all written laws of New South Wales, includes the predecessors, heirs and successors of the Sovereign: Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) s 21. The Crown that made this Grant and the Crown whose authority is invoked in every statute relied upon by any body asserting obligations over the Land is one and the same continuous sovereign authority. There is no discontinuity, no gap, and no basis upon which a derivative statutory body may invoke Crown authority against a prior Crown Grant.

6. Every Bill passed by the New South Wales Parliament is of no legal effect unless duly assented to by or in the name of the Crown: Constitution Act 1902 (NSW). Every statute under which any body claims authority over the Land derives its entire legal existence from the Crown — specifically from the statutory Australian Crown, whose title was created by statute in 1973 for use in relation to a geographic designation, and which postdates the Imperial Crown’s Grant by decades. No such statute can be construed as authorising the destruction or diminution of rights previously granted by the Crown’s own prerogative act absent the clearest and most explicit legislative expression: Potter v Minahan (1908) 7 CLR 277; Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427; Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476.

7. The principle of legality — confirmed as foundational to Australian law in APH Infosheet 23, published by the Parliament of Australia — provides that all words of any statute are subject to the fundamental rights of the individual unless there is explicit language or necessary implication to the contrary. The incidents of the Crown Grant are fundamental property rights. No such explicit language exists in any statute relied upon by the Council in asserting authority over the Land.

8. The Author places the Minister on notice of the following principle, established at common law and confirmed as a general standard of institutional conduct by the Supreme Court of Queensland in Johnston & Ors v Carroll [2024] QSC 2. The High Court of Australia confirmed in Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB (Marion’s Case) (1992) 175 CLR 218 that a person’s right to control what is done to their own person and property is a fundamental common law right applying in all Australian jurisdictions. The Queensland Supreme Court in Johnston confirmed, as a matter of general principle, that any exercise of institutional power over a person’s rights requires the decision-maker to identify the specific legal basis for that power, to demonstrate genuine prior consideration of the rights affected, and to establish that any limitation is specifically warranted. New South Wales does not have a statutory human rights act. That absence does not diminish the common law protections that apply in this jurisdiction, nor Australia’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including Article 1 (self-determination) and Article 17 (privacy and home). The Author calls upon the Council and every body asserting authority over the Land to meet the standard that Johnston confirms as a matter of general principle: identify the specific legal warrant, demonstrate that it was genuinely considered and applied before any power was exercised, and establish that any limitation of the rights of [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] in relation to the Land is specifically and demonstrably justified. No body that has asserted authority over the Land has yet met that standard.

Part II — The Crown Grant and Its Incidents

9. The Crown Grant conveyed the Land with the following specific and express incidents of title:

(a) Depth of grant: [Insert depth as stated in the Crown Grant.]

(b) Rent obligation to the Crown: The grant is made yielding and paying to the Crown and its heirs and successors [one peppercorn / a quit rent of [amount]] on [date] in each year or so soon thereafter as the same shall be lawfully demanded — establishing that the only financial obligation attached to the Land by the Crown Grant runs expressly to the Crown and its heirs and successors, not to any other body.

(c) Power of resumption — reserved to the Crown only: [Insert resumption clause from the Crown Grant.] This power is reserved exclusively to the Crown and those acting by Crown authority — it is not delegated to any local government or statutory agency.

(d) Power to take indigenous timber and materials — reserved to the Crown only: [Insert timber clause if present.] This power is likewise reserved exclusively to the Crown and those acting by Crown authority.

(e) Mineral reservation — reserved to the Crown in full: [Insert mineral reservation clause from the Crown Grant.]

10. The Crown Grant is a complete and self-contained instrument. It defines with precision what was granted, what was reserved, what obligations attach to the Land, and — critically — to whom those obligations run. Every reservation in the Crown Grant runs to the sovereign who made the Grant and to those who lawfully succeed to that sovereign capacity — each recognised as carrying the same authority by force of the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) s 21. The Grant alienates the fee simple to the grantee and his heirs — it does not alienate the reserved incidents. Those reserved incidents remain with the sovereign and pass to each successor in sovereignty, not to any derivative statutory body. Every financial obligation in the Crown Grant runs to the Crown in that continuous sovereign sense. The instrument contains no provision granting authority to any local council to levy rates, to any planning agency to vary the depth or use entitlements, or to any land registry to alter the incidents upon administrative conversion of the registration description. What is absent from the Crown Grant is as legally significant as what is present — powers not granted by the Crown to subsequent statutory bodies do not exist and cannot be assumed, implied, or asserted by threat.

11. The Author specifically draws the Minister’s attention to incident (b) above. The Crown Grant itself establishes the rent obligation attaching to the Land — running to the Crown and its heirs and successors. A local council asserting a rates obligation over the same Land is asserting an additional, parallel, and unauthorised financial obligation over land whose only lawful financial obligation runs to the Crown. The council is not the Crown. Its rates claim is not authorised by the Crown Grant. The revenues it collects do not flow to the Crown’s Consolidated Fund. The Crown Grant already answers the question of what financial obligation the Land carries and to whom it runs — and the council’s rates claim is not that answer.

12. As the High Court established in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1, Crown sovereignty does not confer unlimited beneficial ownership or unlimited regulatory power over land — the Crown’s power is specific, bounded, and legally accountable. No statutory body can claim broader authority over the Land than the Crown itself possesses, and the Crown’s own instrument — the Crown Grant — defines precisely and exhaustively what authority exists in relation to the Land and in whose hands it is reposed.

13. The Council is a body corporate constituted under the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW). As a body corporate it is, by the structural principle confirmed in s 11 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (Cth), and by direct application of the same principle at the State level, legally separate from the Crown. It is not the Crown. It cannot invoke Crown authority whilst simultaneously being legally separate from the Crown. It cannot claim Crown warrant for its collection activities whilst its revenues do not flow to the Crown’s Consolidated Fund.

Part III — Chronological History of Challenge and Institutional Non-Response

14. The history of jurisdictional and authority challenge in relation to the Land is documented, uncontested, and capable of being attested to by Affidavit. It is set out below and is provided to the Minister as evidence upon which the Minister’s own statutory powers of investigation and intervention are engaged.

Quo Warranto Challenge

15. On or about [DATE], a formal challenge was served upon the Council by registered mail demanding, on a quo warranto basis, that the Council demonstrate by what Crown authority it asserted jurisdiction over the Land and claimed financial obligations from [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] as registered proprietor and rightful possessor of the Land under Crown Grant.

16. The challenge specifically required the Council to:

(a) Identify the unbroken chain of authority from the Crown to itself authorising it to assert obligations over Crown Grant land;

(b) Demonstrate that any financial obligation it claimed ran to the Crown and that revenues collected flowed to the Consolidated Fund of New South Wales;

(c) Identify the judicial officer or officers by name who made any liability or enforcement order relied upon;

(d) Produce evidence that any person conducting enforcement proceedings held a current Australian practising certificate under the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW).

17. The Council failed to answer the quo warranto challenge on its merits. It produced no evidence of Crown authority. It identified no legislative provision expressly authorising it to override Crown Grant incidents. It demonstrated no chain of authority from the Crown. It provided no evidence of Consolidated Fund flows. It produced no sealed or judicially authenticated enforcement instruments. It produced no practising certificate evidence.

Notice of Default

18. Following the Council’s failure to respond substantively to the quo warranto challenge, a formal Notice of Default was served upon the Council by registered mail, recording the Council’s failure to establish its authority and placing the Council on notice that its continued assertion of obligations without establishing lawful Crown warrant constituted a knowing exercise of ultra vires power.

Notice of Estoppel

19. A formal Notice of Estoppel was subsequently served upon the Council by registered mail. By operation of estoppel, having failed to establish its jurisdiction and authority when formally challenged and put to proof, the Council is estopped from subsequently asserting that jurisdiction as though it had been established. A body that fails to answer a challenge to its authority cannot later rely upon that authority as if no challenge had been made.

Affidavit of Service

20. An Affidavit has been prepared and sworn, annexing and attesting to the service of all prior notices and recording the Council’s failure to respond substantively to any of them. This Affidavit is annexed to this Notice as Annexure C.

The Council’s Conduct — Threats Without Authority

21. Throughout this entire sequence the Council’s response has been characterised by continued assertion of financial obligation without demonstrated Crown warrant, escalating demands that [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] perform obligations whose authority has never been established, threats of legal action upon non-compliance, and ultimately the threatened taking and selling of the Land as the terminal enforcement mechanism. At no point has the Council:

(a) Demonstrated Crown authority for its claimed jurisdiction over the Land;

(b) Identified any legislative provision expressly authorising it to override Crown Grant incidents;

(c) Shown that revenues it collects flow to the Consolidated Fund of New South Wales;

(d) Produced sealed, judicially authenticated enforcement instruments identifying by name the judicial officers responsible;

(e) Produced practising certificate evidence for persons conducting enforcement proceedings.

22. The Author observes that this pattern of conduct — assertion of financial obligation without demonstrated Crown warrant, demands for compliance with orders whose authority cannot be established, and the threatened taking and selling of land as the terminal step — is not the exercise of lawful Crown authority. It is the exercise of institutional power under colour of Crown authority that the Council cannot establish and has never established when formally challenged. A body corporate legally separate from the Crown, asserting authority it cannot demonstrate, collecting revenues that do not flow to the Crown’s Consolidated Fund, relying upon instruments it cannot authenticate, and threatening to take and sell land held under Crown Grant — is not exercising lawful Crown authority at any point in that process.

23. This conduct engages multiple provisions of the Australian Consumer Law as applied in New South Wales by the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW). The Council, as a body corporate carrying on business, is directly and fully bound by the ACL: AGS Fact Sheet No 12 (Australian Government Solicitor, March 2011). The relevant provisions engaged include:

(a) Section 18 — misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce: by representing, expressly or by conduct, that it holds Crown authority to assert financial obligations over land held under Crown Grant, when that authority has never been established and cannot be established when formally demanded;

(b) Sections 20 and 21 — unconscionable conduct: by pursuing coercive enforcement including the threatened taking and selling of land against [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] as holder of land title under Crown Grant in circumstances where the Council cannot demonstrate the Crown warrant upon which its entire enforcement regime depends;

(c) Section 29 — false or misleading representations: by representing that administrative documents constitute valid court orders and that its enforcement instruments carry judicial authority they do not possess;

(d) Section 50 — harassment and coercion: by deploying a systematic escalation of threats — financial penalties, mandatory performance demands, legal action, and ultimately land sale — as a debt collection process dressed in the language of Crown authority, directed at a holder of land title who has neither accepted the Council’s characterisation of their standing nor consented to its jurisdiction.

24. The Author does not accept, and has at no time accepted, the Council’s characterisation of [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] as a ratepayer. That characterisation is the Council’s unproven assertion, dependent upon the very jurisdiction being challenged, and is rejected accordingly.

Part IV — The Quo Warranto Demand Restated

25. By what warrant does the Council assert a financial obligation over the Land?

26. A statutory obligation is an obligation — whether to pay money, perform certain acts, or discharge certain duties — which is created by or arises out of a statute, as distinguished from one founded upon acts between parties or jural relationships: Black’s Law Dictionary (3rd ed, 1933), p 1657. Being a non-consensual statutory charge it does not require a contract — but it does require Crown authority, Crown warrant, and a Crown recipient. None of these have been established.

27. For the Council’s claim of financial obligation over the Land to be lawful, the Council must demonstrate:

(a) An unbroken chain of authority from the Crown, through express statutory delegation, to itself — legislation that received Royal Assent by or in the name of the Crown: Constitution Act 1902 (NSW);

(b) Express and unambiguous statutory authority to override or vary the incidents of a prior Crown Grant — as required by the principle of legality confirmed in APH Infosheet 23;

(c) That the obligation runs to the Crown — not to an ABN-registered body corporate legally separate from the Crown — and that revenues flow to the Consolidated Fund of New South Wales: Constitution Act 1902 (NSW) s 39;

(d) That persons conducting any enforcement proceedings hold current Australian practising certificates under the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW);

(e) Sealed, judicially authenticated instruments identifying by name the judicial officers who made any orders relied upon.

28. The Author raises the following constitutional point in relation to paragraph 27(c). Section 39 of the Constitution Act 1902 (NSW) provides that all taxes, imposts, rates and duties and all territorial, casual and other revenues of the Crown from whatever source arising within New South Wales over which the Legislature has power of appropriation shall form one Consolidated Fund. That provision expressly includes the word “rates” within the definition of revenues that must flow to the Consolidated Fund if they constitute revenues of the Crown.

29. The constitutional tension this creates for any local government asserting a rates obligation over Crown Grant land is as follows. If the rates obligation is a legitimate exercise of Crown-derived authority over the Land, the question arises whether those revenues constitute revenues of the Crown required by s 39 to flow to the Consolidated Fund. But the rates collected by the Council do not flow to the Consolidated Fund. They flow to the general fund of the Council under the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) — a separate statutory fund entirely outside the Crown’s revenue structure, held by a body corporate that is not the Crown.

30. This creates an unresolved constitutional dilemma for the Council’s position. If the Council’s rating power is a legitimate exercise of Crown authority over Crown Grant land, then revenues it produces should constitute revenues of the Crown and should flow to the Consolidated Fund. They do not. Alternatively, if those revenues are not revenues of the Crown, then the Council is asserting a financial obligation over land whose only defined financial obligation runs to the Crown — as a non-Crown body, retaining the proceeds in a private statutory fund, with no mechanism by which those proceeds ever reach the Crown at all. On either analysis, the Council’s position is constitutionally untenable. Quod non apparet non est — what does not appear does not exist. The Council’s Crown authority over this Land has never been made to appear.

31. The Author further observes, consistently with the principle in paragraph 8 above, that the Council has at no point identified the specific legal warrant for each individual step in its enforcement process, demonstrated genuine prior consideration of the rights of [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] before asserting obligations or issuing demands for performance, or established that any limitation of those rights is specifically justified. The standard confirmed in Johnston as a matter of general principle has not been met at any step.

32. The Council has had ample opportunity to answer the quo warranto demand. It has not done so. It is estopped from doing so now. Its continued assertion of obligations and threats of enforcement in the face of unanswered formal challenge is the clearest possible evidence that it cannot ground its claimed authority in Crown warrant.

Part V — Voluntary Contribution to the Consolidated Fund

33. The Author states without ambiguity that [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] does not refuse to contribute to the genuine administration of public services in the district in which the Land is situated. The Author recognises that public services are administered in that district and that a contribution to the cost of those services is appropriate. The Author’s position is, and has always been, that the constitutionally correct recipient of any such contribution is the Crown’s own Consolidated Fund — not the general fund of a body corporate that has declined to demonstrate its Crown authority over Crown Grant land.

34. Consistently with that position, [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] has tendered a voluntary contribution to the Consolidated Fund of New South Wales under s 39 of the Constitution Act 1902 (NSW), by concurrent letter of even date addressed to the Treasurer of New South Wales. The amount of that contribution has been determined by [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] as a fair and reasonable contribution to the genuine costs of public administration. It is not derived from and bears no relation to any figure asserted by the Council. It is intended to reach the Crown’s own Consolidated Fund and to be applied to the genuine administration of public services — not to the operational overhead, executive remuneration, or ancillary expenditures of any intermediary body corporate.

35. The Author invites the Minister to note that this voluntary contribution to the Consolidated Fund is made in the genuine spirit of civic contribution to the correct constitutional recipient. It is not a stratagem. It is not a refusal dressed as compliance. It is a direct and good faith tender to the Crown, made because the Crown — not the Council — is the entity to whom the Land’s obligations have always run.

Part VI — NSW Land Registry Services and the Conversion of the Crown Grant

36. The Author draws the Minister’s attention to a further matter of constitutional significance. The land title system in New South Wales operates under a regulator-operator model. The Office of the Registrar General is the regulatory body responsible for the integrity of the land title system under the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW). NSW Land Registry Services (NSW LRS) is a private company that operates the land titles registry under a 35-year concession granted from 1 July 2017 — a body corporate, legally separate from the Crown, carrying on business under an ABN.

37. At some point during the [DECADE], the land title registration of the Land was converted from the original Crown Grant Volume/Folio [INSERT] to a Certificate of Title under a different Volume/Folio [INSERT]. In that administrative conversion process, one or more of the express incidents of the Crown Grant appear to have been dropped or altered on the face of the Certificate of Title.

38. No private company operating a land titles registry under a commercial concession — whose own authority traces to a 2016 State statute and a 2017 commercial concession deed — possesses constitutional authority to vary, extinguish, or fail to carry forward the incidents of an Imperial Crown Grant in the course of an administrative conversion of a registration description. The conversion of a Crown Grant to a Certificate of Title is an administrative act of registration. It is not a Crown Grant. It is not a prerogative act. It is not an act of the sovereign. The incidents of the Crown Grant attach to the Land itself — not to any particular registration description — and survive the administrative conversion unchanged and in full force. The Author calls upon the Minister to direct the Registrar General to investigate this conversion and to confirm formally that the incidents of the Crown Grant as originally conveyed remain in full force and unaffected.

Part VII — The Minister’s Position and Demand for Response

39. This Notice places the matter formally before the Minister for Lands and Property as the officer of the Crown with specific statutory and executive responsibility for:

(a) The administration of the Crown Land Management Act 2016 (NSW) and the integrity of Crown grants in New South Wales;

(b) The Office of the Registrar General and, through the regulatory oversight framework, the operations of NSW Land Registry Services;

(c) The policy and legislative framework that supports the registration of land titles in this State.

40. Under the principle of individual ministerial responsibility confirmed in APH Infosheet 23, the Minister is individually responsible for actions taken by departments and agencies within the ministerial portfolio. The integrity of the Imperial Crown grant system — the foundation upon which all freehold title in New South Wales ultimately rests — falls squarely within that responsibility.

41. The Author respectfully but firmly invites the Minister to confirm, on behalf of the Crown, the following matters:

(a) That the incidents of the Imperial Crown Grant as originally conveyed remain in full force and have not been lawfully varied or extinguished by any subsequent administrative conversion of the registration description;

(b) That the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) and the operations of NSW Land Registry Services do not and cannot displace the incidents of an Imperial Crown Grant whose source is superior to State law, and that the analysis in Commonwealth v New South Wales (1923) 33 CLR 1 — a case decided on New South Wales Crown grant land — applies in full to the Land;

(c) The Crown’s position as to whether the financial obligation defined in the Crown Grant — running to the Crown and its heirs and successors — is the only financial obligation attached to the Land by the Imperial Crown’s own prerogative act, and whether any body other than the Crown may assert a competing financial obligation over the Land in the absence of express Crown authority;

(d) The Crown’s position on the constitutional question raised in paragraphs 28 to 30 above — specifically whether rates collected by the Council from Crown Grant land constitute revenues of the Crown for the purposes of s 39 of the Constitution Act 1902 (NSW), and if not, by what authority a non-Crown body retains those revenues in a private fund in circumstances where the Land’s only defined financial obligation runs expressly to the Crown;

(e) Whether the voluntary contribution tendered by [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] to the Consolidated Fund satisfies or stands in lieu of any obligation properly owing to the Crown in respect of the Land;

(f) Whether the Registrar General has any administrative process by which dropped or altered Crown Grant incidents may be restored to or noted on the Certificate of Title.

42. The Author does not seek conflict. The Author seeks clarity — constitutional clarity from the officer of the Crown most appropriately placed to provide it. If the Crown stands behind its own Grant, it should be possible for the Crown’s representative to confirm that in writing. If it cannot, that too is a matter of constitutional significance that belongs permanently on the record.

43. Silence by the Minister will be treated as consistent with the silence of the Council — as an implied concession that Crown authority for the imposition of financial obligations over the Land cannot be established — and will be added to the sworn record accordingly.

Part VIII — Magna Carta and the Rule of Law

44. Magna Carta 1297 — a foundation document of Australian constitutional law confirmed in APH Infosheet 23, an original of which is held at Parliament House Canberra — established that no person shall have action taken against their property except by lawful judgment of their equals or by the law of the land, and that justice shall not be sold, denied, or deferred.

45. A body corporate, legally separate from the Crown, asserting authority it cannot establish, issuing demands for compliance with obligations whose Crown warrant has never been demonstrated, threatening legal action and the taking and selling of land held under Crown Grant, collecting revenues that do not flow to the Crown’s Consolidated Fund but to its own private fund, and relying upon unauthenticated instruments — is acting in direct contradiction of Magna Carta and the rule of law as confirmed in APH Infosheet 23.

46. The Crown — whose continuous authority is confirmed by the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) s 21 and whose assent is required for all legislation by the Constitution Act 1902 (NSW) — is the constitutional standard against which all of this conduct must be measured. The Grant was the Crown’s act. The Author asks no more than that the Crown confirm what its own act conveyed and that those acting in the Crown’s name be in a position to demonstrate that authority when it is formally and persistently demanded.

Ius est ars boni et aequi — law is the art of the good and the just. The Crown Grant records what was granted, what was reserved, and to whom the obligations run. That record does not expire. It does not yield to administrative convenience. It does not give way to threats issued by a body corporate decades after the sovereign’s prerogative act. Nor does it yield to revenues diverted to a private fund rather than to the Crown whose prerogative act created the only financial obligation the Land lawfully carries.

Part IX — Reservation of Rights

47. The Author expressly reserves all rights and remedies at common law, in equity, and under statute, including:

(a) Application for judicial review in the Supreme Court of New South Wales on grounds of jurisdictional error, ultra vires, want of statutory authority, and breach of the principle of legality;

(b) Application to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) for review of any decision affecting the Land;

(c) Complaint to NSW Fair Trading and the ACCC under the Australian Consumer Law for misleading and deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct, and harassment and coercion by a body corporate carrying on business;

(d) Complaint to the NSW Ombudsman;

(e) Access to information requests under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) directed to the Council, the Registrar General, NSW Land Registry Services, and the Department;

(f) Application for mandamus compelling the Minister to perform any duty arising from this Notice;

(g) Addition of the Minister’s response or non-response to the sworn affidavit record of institutional failure to establish Crown authority over the Land;

(h) Such further and other relief as may be appropriate including referral to relevant authorities if the Council’s conduct in threatening to take and sell land without demonstrated Crown warrant constitutes unconscionable commercial conduct under colour of Crown authority.

48. Nothing in this Notice constitutes a waiver of any right. No act or omission on the part of the Author or [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] shall be taken as acquiescence in any claim of jurisdiction over the Land or its Crown Grant incidents.

49. Should the Minister fail to respond substantively within twenty-eight (28) days of receipt of this Notice, that failure will be recorded in the sworn affidavit record and treated as grounds for all remedies identified above.

Declaration

[Full name], a living [man/woman], acting as representative for [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS], declares that the contents of this Notice are true and correct to the best of [his/her] knowledge, information and belief, and that this Notice is made in good faith and for the proper protection of the lawful rights of [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] as registered proprietor and rightful possessor of title to the Land under Imperial Crown Grant.

By: ________________________ [Full name], of the family [Surname] Authorised Representative
All Rights Reserved — Without Waiver of Rights Under the Crown of the United Kingdom, within the Commonwealth as Proclaimed and Gazetted, and at Common Law

Date: [Date of Service]

Annexures

Annexure A — Crown Grant documentation, Volume/Folio [INSERT]
Annexure B — Certificate of Title, Volume/Folio [INSERT], showing dropped or altered incidents
Annexure C — Affidavit of Service attesting to service of all prior notices including quo warranto challenge, Notice of Default, Notice of Estoppel, and record of Council’s non-response
Annexure D — Council enforcement correspondence and instruments including threats of legal action and threatened taking and selling of the Land
Annexure E — Evidence of Council ABN registration
Annexure F — Evidence of NSW Land Registry Services corporate status and concession arrangements

This Notice is a formal constitutional and legal instrument. It invokes the authority of the Crown, the Constitution Act 1902 (NSW), the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), the Crown Land Management Act 2016 (NSW), the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), Magna Carta, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the decisions of the High Court of Australia in Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] HCA 34; (1923) 33 CLR 1 (decided on New South Wales Crown grant land), Trower v Commonwealth [1923] HCA 30; (1923) 32 CLR 585, and Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1, and the persuasive authority of Johnston & Ors v Carroll [2024] QSC 2. It should be brought immediately to the personal attention of the Minister for Lands and Property and retained permanently on official file. Failure to respond substantively within twenty-eight days will be treated as institutional concession that Crown authority over the Land cannot be established and will be added to the sworn record accordingly.

INSTRUMENT 2 — COMPANION LETTER TO THE TREASURER OF NEW SOUTH WALES

[Full name], a living [man/woman] Representative for [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] [Street Address] [Suburb NSW Postcode] [Email] [Phone]

Date: [Date of Service]

The Honourable [Treasurer’s Full Name] Treasurer of New South Wales The Treasury 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000

Re: Voluntary Contribution to the Consolidated Fund under s 39 of the Constitution Act 1902 (NSW) — Crown Grant Land, Lot [X] on Diagram/Plan [Y], Certificate of Title Volume [X] Folio [X], formerly Crown Grant Volume/Folio [INSERT]

Reddite ergo quae sunt Caesaris Caesari — render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.

Your Honour,

1. Purpose of this letter

[Full name], a living [man/woman], acting as representative for [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS], writes to tender a voluntary contribution to the Consolidated Fund of New South Wales, established by s 39 of the Constitution Act 1902 (NSW).

This contribution is made in good faith and in the genuine desire to contribute to the administration of public services in the district in which the Land is situated. It is tendered directly to the constitutionally established revenue account of the Crown. The amount has been determined by [Full name] as a fair and reasonable contribution to the genuine costs of public administration — it is not derived from, and bears no relation to, any figure asserted by any other body. It is intended to reach the Crown’s own Consolidated Fund and to be applied to the genuine administration of public services, not to the operational overhead, executive remuneration, or ancillary expenditures of any intermediary body corporate.

[Full name] invites the Treasurer to provide EFT banking details for the Consolidated Fund so that this contribution may be remitted directly and without unnecessary delay. In the absence of those details, a bank cheque made payable to the Treasurer of New South Wales is held ready for dispatch upon request.

2. The land

The land the subject of this letter is:

Lot [X] on Diagram/Plan [Y] Certificate of Title Volume [X] Folio [X] Originally conveyed by Crown Grant Volume/Folio [INSERT] [Address or location description] Local Government Area: [Council Name] ABN [INSERT]

The Land is held in fee simple under a Crown Grant issued by the Governor of New South Wales as representative of the Imperial Crown in its sovereign and prerogative capacity. The original Crown Grant contains express incidents including: a defined depth of grant; a rent obligation payable to the King and his heirs and successors; powers of resumption reserved to the Crown and those acting by Crown authority; a power to take indigenous timber and materials reserved to the Crown; and a comprehensive mineral reservation to the Crown. Those incidents run with the Land by the express terms of the Crown Grant. They have not been extinguished by any subsequent administrative conversion of the registration description. They have not been varied by any express act of the Crown. They remain in full force as the paramount title instrument in relation to the Land.

The Author notes that the High Court’s ruling in Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] HCA 34; (1923) 33 CLR 1 — that a title derived from a superior law is wholly independent of State registration laws and State laws of any kind — arose directly from New South Wales Crown grant land, with grants dating to 1849 and 1823. That decision is of direct and binding authority over the Land the subject of this letter.

3. The constitutional basis for this contribution

Section 39 of the Constitution Act 1902 (NSW) provides that all taxes, imposts, rates and duties and all territorial, casual and other revenues of the Crown from whatever source arising within New South Wales over which the Legislature has power of appropriation shall form one Consolidated Fund. That provision expressly includes the word “rates” within the definition of revenues that must flow to the Consolidated Fund if they constitute revenues of the Crown.

It is under s 39 and the provisions governing receipt of revenue into the Consolidated Fund that the present voluntary contribution is tendered.

The rent obligation under the original Crown Grant is expressly payable to the King and his heirs and successors — that is, to those who lawfully succeed to the sovereign capacity, each recognised as carrying the same authority by force of the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) s 21. Any revenue properly characterised as arising from or in relation to Crown Grant land therefore belongs constitutionally in the Consolidated Fund — not in the general fund of a body corporate established under the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW). The general fund of the Council is a private statutory fund of a non-Crown body corporate. It is entirely separate from the Consolidated Fund. The two funds are constitutionally and structurally distinct.

The Council is constituted under the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) as a body corporate legally separate from the Crown. It is not the Crown. It is not an heir or successor of the sovereign in any capacity. It does not collect in the name of the Crown. The revenues it collects do not flow to the Consolidated Fund. It is therefore not the constitutionally correct recipient of any revenue arising from or attributable to obligations running under the Crown Grant.

[Full name] further notes that any body asserting financial obligations over the Land is, by the general principle confirmed in Johnston & Ors v Carroll [2024] QSC 2 as persuasive authority, required to identify the specific legal warrant for each such assertion, to demonstrate genuine prior consideration of the rights of [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] as holder of the full fee simple estate — both at law and in equity — before imposing any such obligation, and to establish that any limitation of those rights is specifically and demonstrably justified. The High Court confirmed in Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB (Marion’s Case) (1992) 175 CLR 218 that a person’s right to control what is done to their own person and property is a fundamental common law right applying in all Australian jurisdictions. No body asserting obligations over the Land has identified its specific warrant, demonstrated prior genuine consideration of those rights, or justified any limitation of them. This voluntary contribution to the Consolidated Fund is made in that context — as a direct act toward the constitutionally correct recipient, entirely independent of any unwarranted assertion by any other body.

4. Prior engagement with the Council

[Full name], as representative for [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS], has served a series of formal written notices upon the Council by registered mail, each demanding that the Council demonstrate:

(a) The unbroken chain of Crown authority from the Imperial Crown to itself by which it asserts authority to impose financial obligations upon land held under Crown Grant;

(b) The specific legislative provision expressly authorising a non-Crown body corporate to override or supplement the incidents of an Imperial Crown Grant;

(c) That revenues it collects flow to the Consolidated Fund of New South Wales as required by s 39 of the Constitution Act 1902 (NSW).

The Council has not provided any substantive response to those notices. In lieu of any lawful answer, the Council has continued to assert financial obligations, issue demands for compliance with performance requirements whose authority has never been established, threaten legal action, and ultimately threaten the taking and selling of the Land. A formal Notice of Default and a formal Notice of Estoppel have been served. An Affidavit has been sworn attesting to the complete sequence of challenge and non-response. A Notice of equivalent constitutional content has been served concurrently upon the Minister for Lands and Property.

This voluntary contribution to the Consolidated Fund is made entirely independently of that sequence. It is not a response to any assertion by the Council. It is a direct and voluntary act toward the Crown’s own revenue account, made because [Full name] recognises that the Land sits within a district in which public services are administered, and genuinely wishes to contribute to the cost of those services through the constitutionally correct channel.

5. What [Full name] requests of the Treasurer

[Full name] respectfully requests that the Treasurer:

(a) Provide EFT banking details for the Consolidated Fund so that this contribution may be remitted directly upon receipt of those details;

(b) Accept this contribution and cause it to be credited to the Consolidated Fund;

(c) Provide written acknowledgment that the contribution has been received and credited to the Consolidated Fund;

(d) Confirm in writing whether, in the Crown’s view, any further financial obligation to the Crown in respect of the Land at [address] remains outstanding; and

(e) If the Treasurer’s position is that this voluntary contribution to the Consolidated Fund does not discharge or stand in lieu of any obligation properly owing to the Crown in respect of the Land, provide written advice identifying the specific provision of law by which any non-Crown body corporate legally separate from the Crown holds authority to collect revenue from land held under Imperial Crown Grant in substitution for or in addition to the Crown’s own revenue rights over that land.

6. Good faith

This letter is written entirely in good faith. It is a tender of contribution to the correct constitutional recipient, accompanied by a genuine request for the Crown’s own position on the questions it raises. The contribution is made freely, without duress, and without any concession as to the jurisdiction of any body that has not demonstrated Crown authority over the Land. [Full name] hopes that the Treasurer will receive it in the same spirit in which it is tendered.

A response within 28 days of the date of this letter is respectfully requested.

Date: [Date of Service]

Annexure

Annexure C — Affidavit of Service (copy, for Treasurer’s reference)

Practical notes before sending: Both instruments — this letter to the Treasurer and the Notice to the Minister for Lands and Property — should be served on the same date by registered post with delivery confirmation retained. The NSW Treasury is at 1 Farrer Place, Sydney NSW 2000. Confirm the correct account reference for voluntary contributions to the Consolidated Fund with NSW Treasury before a bank cheque is drawn or an EFT is remitted. In NSW the relevant contact for State revenue matters is Revenue NSW. Retain certified copies of both instruments and all proof of service and payment. The amount contributed should be determined solely by the contributor as a fair assessment of genuine public administration costs — it should not replicate or acknowledge any figure the Council has asserted.

Victoria

[LGL-2026-03-25-4]

The Victoria-specific changes required are: the Minister (the Hon. Lily D’Ambrosio MP, Minister for Planning; the land titles and Crown land functions sit within the Department of Transport and Planning); the department address; Victorian constitutional chain references; Land Use Victoria as the land titles registry operator within the Department of Transport and Planning (not a private concessionaire — a government body, which is noted as a point of distinction); the Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic); the Local Government Act 2020 (Vic); the Legal Profession Uniform Law (Vic) applied by the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (Vic); the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic); the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 (Vic); the Constitution Act 1975 (Vic); the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic); the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 (Vic); the Consolidated Fund under s 94 of the Constitution Act 1975 (Vic); VCAT replacing NCAT/SAT; the Victorian Ombudsman; and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Victoria does have a human rights act — the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) — however, as these are ratepayers not employees or recipients of government services in the direct Charter sense, and as the Charter primarily binds public authorities in their conduct, I have noted the Charter as an additional available instrument in the reservation of rights rather than in the main body, which keeps the argument clean and accurate. Both instruments follow.Good. All verifications complete. The current Minister for Planning in Victoria is the Hon. Sonya Kilkenny MP, who also holds the portfolio of Attorney-General as of December 2024. The Department of Transport and Planning is at 1 Spring Street, Melbourne VIC 3000, GPO Box 2392, Melbourne VIC 3001. Land Use Victoria operates within the Department of Transport and Planning as the land titles registry — it is a government body, not a private concessionaire, which is an important distinction from the NSW and WA models. The Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic) is the governing land titles statute. The Land Act 1958 (Vic) governs Crown land. The Local Government Act 2020 (Vic) constitutes councils. The Consolidated Fund is in s 94 of the Constitution Act 1975 (Vic). Victoria has the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) — the only jurisdiction in this series with such legislation — which is integrated directly into the main body of the Notice as an additional ground, making the Victorian Notice the strongest of the series on the human rights point.

INSTRUMENT 1 — NOTICE TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING, VICTORIA

FORMAL NOTICE AND DEMAND

To the Minister for Planning, Victoria

Pursuant to the Land Act 1958 (Vic), the Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic), the Constitution Act 1975 (Vic), the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic), the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic), the Legal Profession Uniform Law (Vic) as applied by the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (Vic), the Australian Consumer Law as applied in Victoria by the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 (Vic), the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic), the Public Governance Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (Cth), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Magna Carta 1297, and at Common Law

FROM: [Full name], a living [man/woman], representative for [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] [Street Address] [Suburb VIC Postcode] [Email] [Phone]

DATE: [Date of Service]

TO: The Honourable Sonya Kilkenny MP Minister for Planning Department of Transport and Planning 1 Spring Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000

RE: Final Notice — Chronic Failure by [Council Name] ABN [INSERT] (hereafter “the Council”) to Establish Crown Authority or Jurisdiction over Land Held under Crown Grant; Prior Quo Warranto Challenge and Formal Notices Unanswered; Constitutional Questions Concerning the Consolidated Fund; Human Rights Obligations under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic); Continued Threats of Enforcement by a Non-Crown Body Corporate; Voluntary Contribution Tendered Directly to the Crown’s Consolidated Fund; and Demand for Ministerial Confirmation of Crown Position

Crown Grant Reference: [INSERT] Volume/Folio [INSERT] Certificate of Title Volume/Folio: [INSERT] Land Description: Lot [X] on Plan of Subdivision/Crown Grant Description [Y], originally conveyed by Crown Grant Volume/Folio [INSERT], presently described under Certificate of Title Volume/Folio [INSERT] (herein “the Land”) Local Government Area: [Council Name] ABN [INSERT]

Part I — Standing, Constitutional Foundation and Nature of This Notice

1. [Full name], a living [man/woman], herein the Author, acts in the capacity of representative for [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS], holder of the full fee simple estate in the Land — being the most extensive estate known to law, conferring every act of ownership which can enter into the imagination, both at law and in equity — originally conveyed by Crown Grant issued by the Crown in its sovereign and prerogative capacity on or about [DATE/DECADE] (the “Crown Grant”). That grant was a direct act of the Crown as sovereign, predating and standing above all subsequent statutory instruments, and conveying to the registered proprietor specific and express incidents of title that are not capable of extinguishment, modification, or variation except by the Crown itself acting through express and unambiguous legislative authority. The Author notes that the Land has at no time changed in its physical boundaries or extent, yet the registration description has been altered from the original Crown Grant Volume/Folio [INSERT] to a Certificate of Title under a different Volume/Folio [INSERT] — a change effected not by the Crown, but by the land registry — such that the incidents of the original Crown Grant, which remain the paramount and governing title instrument, have been dropped or altered in the Certificate of Title without Crown authority. The Author reserves all rights, legal, beneficial, and equitable, in relation to the Land and this Notice.

3. This Notice is the culmination of a chronological sequence of formal jurisdictional and authority challenges — each served upon the Council by registered mail, each demanding that the Council demonstrate by what Crown authority it asserted jurisdiction over the Land and claimed financial obligations from [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] as registered proprietor, and each met with silence, with demands for performance of obligations whose authority has never been established, or with threats of legal action and ultimately the threatened taking and selling of the Land in lieu of any lawful answer. It is not a complaint. It is not a request. It is a formal constitutional demand addressed to the Minister for Planning as the officer of the Crown with lawful authority and responsibility for the integrity of Crown grants and the land title system in Victoria.

4. The Crown, for the purposes of all written laws of Victoria, means and includes Her Majesty and her heirs and successors: Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic) s 38. The Crown that made this Grant and the Crown whose authority is invoked in every statute relied upon by any body asserting obligations over the Land is one and the same continuous sovereign authority. There is no discontinuity, no gap, and no basis upon which a derivative statutory body may invoke Crown authority against a prior Crown Grant.

5. Every Bill passed by the Victorian Parliament is of no legal effect unless duly assented to by or in the name of the Crown: Constitution Act 1975 (Vic). Every statute under which any body claims authority over the Land derives its entire legal existence from the Crown — specifically from the statutory Australian Crown, whose title was created by statute in 1973 for use in relation to a geographic designation, and which postdates the Imperial Crown’s Grant by decades. No such statute can be construed as authorising the destruction or diminution of rights previously granted by the Crown’s own prerogative act absent the clearest and most explicit legislative expression: Potter v Minahan (1908) 7 CLR 277; Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427; Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476.

6. The principle of legality — confirmed as foundational to Australian law in APH Infosheet 23, published by the Parliament of Australia — provides that all words of any statute are subject to the fundamental rights of the individual unless there is explicit language or necessary implication to the contrary. The incidents of the Crown Grant are fundamental property rights. No such explicit language exists in any statute relied upon by the Council in asserting authority over the Land.

7. The Author places the Minister on notice of the following obligations arising under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic). Victoria is the only Australian state with a statutory human rights charter of general application. Section 38(1) of the Charter provides that it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a human right or, in making a decision, to fail to give proper consideration to a relevant human right. The Council is a public authority within the meaning of the Charter. The Author identifies the following Charter rights as engaged by the Council’s conduct in relation to the Land:

(a) Section 13 — privacy and property: the right not to have property unlawfully searched, seized, or interfered with;

(b) Section 20 — property rights: a person must not be deprived of property other than in accordance with law;

(c) Section 24 — fair hearing: a party to a civil proceeding has the right to have the matter determined by an independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing.

8. The Council has asserted financial obligations over the Land, demanded compliance, threatened legal action, and threatened to take and sell the Land — without at any point identifying the specific legal basis for those actions, demonstrating that it gave genuine prior consideration to the Charter rights of [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS], or establishing that any limitation of those rights was demonstrably justified in accordance with s 7(2) of the Charter. The Supreme Court of Queensland confirmed in Johnston & Ors v Carroll [2024] QSC 2 — as persuasive authority on the general principle applicable in all Australian jurisdictions — that exercises of institutional power over a person’s rights require the decision-maker to identify the specific legal basis, demonstrate genuine prior consideration of the rights affected, and establish that any limitation is specifically warranted. In Victoria that obligation is additionally binding by force of the Charter itself. The High Court confirmed in Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB (Marion’s Case) (1992) 175 CLR 218 that a person’s right to control what is done to their own person and property is a fundamental common law right applying throughout Australia. No body asserting authority over the Land has met that standard at any step.

Part II — The Crown Grant and Its Incidents

9. The Crown Grant conveyed the Land with the following specific and express incidents of title:

(a) Depth of grant: [Insert depth as stated in the Crown Grant.]

(e) Mineral reservation — reserved to the Crown in full: [Insert mineral reservation clause from the Crown Grant.]

10. The Crown Grant is a complete and self-contained instrument. It defines with precision what was granted, what was reserved, what obligations attach to the Land, and — critically — to whom those obligations run. Every reservation in the Crown Grant runs to the sovereign who made the Grant and to those who lawfully succeed to that sovereign capacity — each recognised as carrying the same authority by force of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic) s 38. The Grant alienates the fee simple to the grantee and his heirs — it does not alienate the reserved incidents. Those reserved incidents remain with the sovereign and pass to each successor in sovereignty, not to any derivative statutory body. Every financial obligation in the Crown Grant runs to the Crown in that continuous sovereign sense. The instrument contains no provision granting authority to any local council to levy rates, to any planning agency to vary the depth or use entitlements, or to any land registry to alter the incidents upon administrative conversion of the registration description. What is absent from the Crown Grant is as legally significant as what is present — powers not granted by the Crown to subsequent statutory bodies do not exist and cannot be assumed, implied, or asserted by threat.

13. The Council is a body corporate constituted under the Local Government Act 2020 (Vic). As a body corporate it is, by the structural principle confirmed in s 11 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (Cth), and by direct application of the same principle at the State level, legally separate from the Crown. It is not the Crown. It cannot invoke Crown authority whilst simultaneously being legally separate from the Crown. It cannot claim Crown warrant for its collection activities whilst its revenues do not flow to the Crown’s Consolidated Fund.

Part III — Chronological History of Challenge and Institutional Non-Response

Quo Warranto Challenge

16. The challenge specifically required the Council to:

(a) Identify the unbroken chain of authority from the Crown to itself authorising it to assert obligations over Crown Grant land;

(b) Demonstrate that any financial obligation it claimed ran to the Crown and that revenues collected flowed to the Consolidated Fund of Victoria;

(c) Identify the judicial officer or officers by name who made any liability or enforcement order relied upon;

(d) Produce evidence that any person conducting enforcement proceedings held a current Australian practising certificate under the Legal Profession Uniform Law (Vic);

(e) Demonstrate that it gave genuine prior consideration to the Charter rights of [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] before asserting those obligations, as required by s 38(1) of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic).

Notice of Default

Notice of Estoppel

Affidavit of Service

The Council’s Conduct — Threats Without Authority

(a) Demonstrated Crown authority for its claimed jurisdiction over the Land;

(b) Identified any legislative provision expressly authorising it to override Crown Grant incidents;

(c) Shown that revenues it collects flow to the Consolidated Fund of Victoria;

(d) Produced sealed, judicially authenticated enforcement instruments identifying by name the judicial officers responsible;

(e) Produced practising certificate evidence for persons conducting enforcement proceedings;

(f) Demonstrated Charter compliance by identifying the rights engaged, showing genuine prior consideration, and establishing that any limitation was demonstrably justified.

22. The Author observes that this pattern of conduct — assertion of financial obligation without demonstrated Crown warrant, demands for compliance with orders whose authority cannot be established, failure to comply with Charter obligations, and the threatened taking and selling of land as the terminal step — is not the exercise of lawful Crown authority. It is the exercise of institutional power in a manner that is both constitutionally ungrounded and, in this jurisdiction, unlawful under s 38(1) of the Charter.

23. This conduct engages multiple provisions of the Australian Consumer Law as applied in Victoria by the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 (Vic). The Council, as a body corporate carrying on business, is directly and fully bound by the ACL: AGS Fact Sheet No 12 (Australian Government Solicitor, March 2011). The relevant provisions engaged include:

Part IV — The Quo Warranto Demand Restated

25. By what warrant does the Council assert a financial obligation over the Land?

27. For the Council’s claim of financial obligation over the Land to be lawful, the Council must demonstrate:

(b) Express and unambiguous statutory authority to override or vary the incidents of a prior Crown Grant — as required by the principle of legality confirmed in APH Infosheet 23;

(c) That the obligation runs to the Crown — not to an ABN-registered body corporate legally separate from the Crown — and that revenues flow to the Consolidated Fund of Victoria: Constitution Act 1975 (Vic) s 94;

(d) That persons conducting any enforcement proceedings hold current Australian practising certificates under the Legal Profession Uniform Law (Vic);

(e) Sealed, judicially authenticated instruments identifying by name the judicial officers who made any orders relied upon;

(f) That it gave genuine prior consideration to the Charter rights of [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] before asserting each obligation and taking each enforcement step, and that any limitation of those rights was demonstrably justified under s 7(2) of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic).

28. The Author raises the following constitutional point in relation to paragraph 27(c). Section 94 of the Constitution Act 1975 (Vic) provides that all taxes, imposts, rates and duties and all territorial, casual and other revenues of the Crown from whatever source arising within Victoria, over which the Legislature has power of appropriation, shall form one Consolidated Fund. That provision expressly includes the word “rates” within the definition of revenues that must flow to the Consolidated Fund if they constitute revenues of the Crown.

29. The constitutional tension this creates for any local government asserting a rates obligation over Crown Grant land is as follows. If the rates obligation is a legitimate exercise of Crown-derived authority over the Land, the question arises whether those revenues constitute revenues of the Crown required by s 94 to flow to the Consolidated Fund. But the rates collected by the Council do not flow to the Consolidated Fund. They flow to the general fund of the Council under the Local Government Act 2020 (Vic) — a separate statutory fund entirely outside the Crown’s revenue structure, held by a body corporate that is not the Crown.

31. The Author further observes that the Charter obligation in paragraph 27(f) above is not merely procedural. Section 38(1) of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) makes it unlawful for a public authority to act incompatibly with a human right or to fail to give proper consideration to a relevant human right. A decision to assert a financial obligation over the Land, to demand compliance with performance requirements, to threaten legal action, or to threaten the taking and selling of the Land — each of these is a decision that engages Charter rights, including the right not to be deprived of property other than in accordance with law: s 20. Each such decision was made without demonstrated Charter compliance. Each is therefore, in addition to being constitutionally ungrounded, potentially unlawful under the Charter.

Part V — Voluntary Contribution to the Consolidated Fund

34. Consistently with that position, [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] has tendered a voluntary contribution to the Consolidated Fund of Victoria under s 94 of the Constitution Act 1975 (Vic), by concurrent letter of even date addressed to the Treasurer of Victoria. The amount of that contribution has been determined by [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] as a fair and reasonable contribution to the genuine costs of public administration. It is not derived from and bears no relation to any figure asserted by the Council. It is intended to reach the Crown’s own Consolidated Fund and to be applied to the genuine administration of public services — not to the operational overhead, executive remuneration, or ancillary expenditures of any intermediary body corporate.

Part VI — Land Use Victoria and the Conversion of the Crown Grant

36. The Author draws the Minister’s attention to a further matter of constitutional significance. Land Use Victoria, operating within the Department of Transport and Planning, administers the land titles registry in Victoria under the Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic). Unlike the registry arrangements in some other States, Land Use Victoria is a government body rather than a private concessionaire. That does not, however, alter the constitutional analysis — a government body operating a statutory registry derives its authority from legislation, not from the prerogative, and cannot vary, extinguish, or fail to carry forward the incidents of an Imperial Crown Grant in the course of an administrative conversion of a registration description.

38. The conversion of a Crown Grant to a Certificate of Title is an administrative act of registration. It is not a Crown Grant. It is not a prerogative act. It is not an act of the sovereign. No land registry body — whether government or private — has authority, express or implied, to vary, extinguish, or fail to carry forward the incidents of a Crown Grant in the course of an administrative conversion of the registration description. The incidents of the Crown Grant attach to the Land itself — not to any particular registration description — and survive the administrative conversion unchanged and in full force. The Author calls upon the Minister to direct Land Use Victoria to investigate this conversion and to confirm formally that the incidents of the Crown Grant as originally conveyed remain in full force and unaffected.

Part VII — The Minister’s Position and Demand for Response

39. This Notice places the matter formally before the Minister for Planning as the officer of the Crown with specific statutory and executive responsibility for:

(a) The administration of the Land Act 1958 (Vic) and the integrity of Crown grants in Victoria;

(b) The Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic) and the land title system operated by Land Use Victoria within the Department of Transport and Planning;

(c) The planning system and any agency that has purported to vary Crown Grant conditions.

40. Under the principle of individual ministerial responsibility confirmed in APH Infosheet 23, the Minister is individually responsible for actions taken by departments and agencies within the ministerial portfolio. The integrity of the Imperial Crown grant system — the foundation upon which all freehold title in Victoria ultimately rests — falls squarely within that responsibility.

41. The Author respectfully but firmly invites the Minister to confirm, on behalf of the Crown, the following matters:

(b) That the Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic) and the operations of Land Use Victoria do not and cannot displace the incidents of an Imperial Crown Grant whose source is superior to State law;

(d) The Crown’s position on the constitutional question raised in paragraphs 28 to 30 above — specifically whether rates collected by the Council from Crown Grant land constitute revenues of the Crown for the purposes of s 94 of the Constitution Act 1975 (Vic), and if not, by what authority a non-Crown body retains those revenues in a private fund in circumstances where the Land’s only defined financial obligation runs expressly to the Crown;

(e) The Crown’s position on the Charter question raised in paragraphs 7, 8, 27(f) and 31 above — specifically whether the Council’s conduct in asserting financial obligations, issuing demands, threatening legal action, and threatening land sale, without demonstrating Charter compliance at any step, constitutes conduct that is unlawful under s 38(1) of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic);

(f) Whether the voluntary contribution tendered by [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] to the Consolidated Fund satisfies or stands in lieu of any obligation properly owing to the Crown in respect of the Land;

(g) Whether Land Use Victoria has any administrative process by which dropped or altered Crown Grant incidents may be restored to or noted on the Certificate of Title.

42. The Author does not seek conflict. The Author seeks clarity — constitutional clarity from the officer of the Crown most appropriately placed to provide it. If the Crown stands behind its own Grant, it should be possible for the Crown’s representative to confirm that in writing. If it cannot, that too is a matter of constitutional and Charter significance that belongs permanently on the record.

43. Silence by the Minister will be treated as consistent with the silence of the Council — as an implied concession that Crown authority for the imposition of financial obligations over the Land cannot be established and that Charter compliance cannot be demonstrated — and will be added to the sworn record accordingly.

Part VIII — Magna Carta and the Rule of Law

45. A body corporate, legally separate from the Crown, asserting authority it cannot establish, issuing demands for compliance with obligations whose Crown warrant has never been demonstrated, threatening legal action and the taking and selling of land held under Crown Grant, collecting revenues that do not flow to the Crown’s Consolidated Fund but to its own private fund, failing to comply with its statutory obligations under the Charter, and relying upon unauthenticated instruments — is acting in direct contradiction of Magna Carta, the rule of law, and the statutory human rights framework of this State.

46. The Crown — whose continuous authority is confirmed by the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic) s 38 and whose assent is required for all legislation by the Constitution Act 1975 (Vic) — is the constitutional standard against which all of this conduct must be measured. The Grant was the Crown’s act. The Author asks no more than that the Crown confirm what its own act conveyed and that those acting in the Crown’s name be in a position to demonstrate that authority — and that Charter compliance — when it is formally and persistently demanded.

Ius est ars boni et aequi — law is the art of the good and the just. The Crown Grant records what was granted, what was reserved, and to whom the obligations run. That record does not expire. It does not yield to administrative convenience. It does not give way to threats issued by a body corporate that cannot demonstrate Crown authority and has not complied with its Charter obligations. Nor does it yield to revenues diverted to a private fund rather than to the Crown whose prerogative act created the only financial obligation the Land lawfully carries.

Part IX — Reservation of Rights

47. The Author expressly reserves all rights and remedies at common law, in equity, and under statute, including:

(a) Application for judicial review in the Supreme Court of Victoria on grounds of jurisdictional error, ultra vires, want of statutory authority, breach of the principle of legality, and unlawful conduct under s 38 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic);

(b) Application to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) for review of any decision affecting the Land, and for relief under the Charter;

(c) Complaint to Consumer Affairs Victoria and the ACCC under the Australian Consumer Law for misleading and deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct, and harassment and coercion by a body corporate carrying on business;

(d) Complaint to the Victorian Ombudsman;

(e) Freedom of Information requests under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic) directed to the Council, Land Use Victoria, and the Department;

(f) Application for mandamus compelling the Minister to perform any duty arising from this Notice;

(g) Addition of the Minister’s response or non-response to the sworn affidavit record of institutional failure to establish Crown authority over the Land;

Declaration

By: ________________________ [Full name], of the family [Surname] Authorised Representative All Rights Reserved — Without Waiver of Rights Under the Crown of the United Kingdom, within the Commonwealth as Proclaimed and Gazetted, and at Common Law

Date: [Date of Service]

Annexures

Annexure A — Crown Grant documentation, Volume/Folio [INSERT]
Annexure B — Certificate of Title, Volume/Folio [INSERT], showing dropped or altered incidents
Annexure C — Affidavit of Service attesting to service of all prior notices including quo warranto challenge, Notice of Default, Notice of Estoppel, and record of Council’s non-response
Annexure D — Council enforcement correspondence and instruments including threats of legal action and threatened taking and selling of the Land
Annexure E — Evidence of Council ABN registration

This Notice is a formal constitutional and legal instrument. It invokes the authority of the Crown, the Constitution Act 1975 (Vic), the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic), the Land Act 1958 (Vic), the Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic), the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic), Magna Carta, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the decisions of the High Court of Australia in Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] HCA 34; (1923) 33 CLR 1, Trower v Commonwealth [1923] HCA 30; (1923) 32 CLR 585, and Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1, and the persuasive authority of Johnston & Ors v Carroll [2024] QSC 2. It should be brought immediately to the personal attention of the Minister for Planning and retained permanently on official file. Failure to respond substantively within twenty-eight days will be treated as institutional concession that Crown authority over the Land cannot be established and will be added to the sworn record accordingly.

INSTRUMENT 2 — COMPANION LETTER TO THE TREASURER OF VICTORIA

[Full name], a living [man/woman] Representative for [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] [Street Address] [Suburb VIC Postcode] [Email] [Phone]

Date: [Date of Service]

The Honourable [Treasurer’s Full Name] Treasurer of Victoria Department of Treasury and Finance 1 Treasury Place MELBOURNE VIC 3002

Re: Voluntary Contribution to the Consolidated Fund under s 94 of the Constitution Act 1975 (Vic) — Crown Grant Land, Lot [X] on Plan of Subdivision/Crown Grant Description [Y], Certificate of Title Volume [X] Folio [X], formerly Crown Grant Volume/Folio [INSERT]

Reddite ergo quae sunt Caesaris Caesari — render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.

Your Honour,

1. Purpose of this letter

[Full name], a living [man/woman], acting as representative for [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS], writes to tender a voluntary contribution to the Consolidated Fund of Victoria, established by s 94 of the Constitution Act 1975 (Vic).

2. The land

The land the subject of this letter is:

Lot [X] on Plan of Subdivision/Crown Grant Description [Y] Certificate of Title Volume [X] Folio [X] Originally conveyed by Crown Grant Volume/Folio [INSERT] [Address or location description] Local Government Area: [Council Name] ABN [INSERT]

The Land is held in fee simple under a Crown Grant issued by the Governor of Victoria as representative of the Imperial Crown in its sovereign and prerogative capacity. The original Crown Grant contains express incidents including: a defined depth of grant; a rent obligation payable to the King and his heirs and successors; powers of resumption reserved to the Crown and those acting by Crown authority; a power to take indigenous timber and materials reserved to the Crown; and a comprehensive mineral reservation to the Crown. Those incidents run with the Land by the express terms of the Crown Grant. They have not been extinguished by any subsequent administrative conversion of the registration description. They have not been varied by any express act of the Crown. They remain in full force as the paramount title instrument in relation to the Land.

3. The constitutional basis for this contribution

Section 94 of the Constitution Act 1975 (Vic) provides that all taxes, imposts, rates and duties and all territorial, casual and other revenues of the Crown from whatever source arising within Victoria, over which the Legislature has power of appropriation, shall form one Consolidated Fund. That provision expressly includes the word “rates” within the definition of revenues that must flow to the Consolidated Fund if they constitute revenues of the Crown.

It is under s 94 and the provisions governing receipt of revenue into the Consolidated Fund that the present voluntary contribution is tendered.

The rent obligation under the original Crown Grant is expressly payable to the King and his heirs and successors — that is, to those who lawfully succeed to the sovereign capacity, each recognised as carrying the same authority by force of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic) s 38. Any revenue properly characterised as arising from or in relation to Crown Grant land therefore belongs constitutionally in the Consolidated Fund — not in the general fund of a body corporate established under the Local Government Act 2020 (Vic). The general fund of the Council is a private statutory fund of a non-Crown body corporate. It is entirely separate from the Consolidated Fund. The two funds are constitutionally and structurally distinct.

The Council is constituted under the Local Government Act 2020 (Vic) as a body corporate legally separate from the Crown. It is not the Crown. It is not an heir or successor of the sovereign in any capacity. It does not collect in the name of the Crown. The revenues it collects do not flow to the Consolidated Fund. It is therefore not the constitutionally correct recipient of any revenue arising from or attributable to obligations running under the Crown Grant.

[Full name] further notes that any body asserting financial obligations over the Land is, by the general principle confirmed in Johnston & Ors v Carroll [2024] QSC 2, and in Victoria by force of s 38(1) of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic), required to identify the specific legal warrant for each such assertion, to demonstrate genuine prior consideration of the rights of [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] as holder of the full fee simple estate — both at law and in equity — before imposing any such obligation, and to establish that any limitation of those rights is specifically and demonstrably justified. In Victoria this obligation is not merely a general principle — it is a statutory obligation binding on all public authorities. The Council has not demonstrated compliance with that obligation at any step. The High Court confirmed in Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB (Marion’s Case) (1992) 175 CLR 218 that a person’s right to control what is done to their own person and property is a fundamental common law right applying throughout Australia. This voluntary contribution to the Consolidated Fund is made in that context — as a direct act toward the constitutionally correct recipient, entirely independent of any unwarranted assertion by any other body.

4. Prior engagement with the Council

[Full name], as representative for [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS], has served a series of formal written notices upon the Council by registered mail, each demanding that the Council demonstrate:

(a) The unbroken chain of Crown authority from the Imperial Crown to itself by which it asserts authority to impose financial obligations upon land held under Crown Grant;

(b) The specific legislative provision expressly authorising a non-Crown body corporate to override or supplement the incidents of an Imperial Crown Grant;

(c) That revenues it collects flow to the Consolidated Fund of Victoria as required by s 94 of the Constitution Act 1975 (Vic);

(d) That it gave genuine prior consideration to the Charter rights of [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] before asserting obligations and taking enforcement steps, as required by s 38(1) of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic).

5. What [Full name] requests of the Treasurer

[Full name] respectfully requests that the Treasurer:

(a) Provide EFT banking details for the Consolidated Fund so that this contribution may be remitted directly upon receipt of those details;

(b) Accept this contribution and cause it to be credited to the Consolidated Fund under s 94 of the Constitution Act 1975 (Vic);

(c) Provide written acknowledgment that the contribution has been received and credited to the Consolidated Fund;

(d) Confirm in writing whether, in the Crown’s view, any further financial obligation to the Crown in respect of the Land at [address] remains outstanding; and

6. Good faith

This letter is written entirely in good faith. It is a tender of contribution to the correct constitutional recipient, accompanied by a genuine request for the Crown’s own position on the questions it raises. The contribution is made freely, without duress, and without any concession as to the jurisdiction of any body that has not demonstrated Crown authority over the Land or complied with its Charter obligations in relation to [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS]. [Full name] hopes that the Treasurer will receive it in the same spirit in which it is tendered.

A response within 28 days of the date of this letter is respectfully requested.

By: ________________________ [Full name], of the family [Surname] Authorised Representative All Rights Reserved — Without Waiver of Rights Under the Crown of the United Kingdom, within the Commonwealth as Proclaimed and Gazetted, and at Common Law

Date: [Date of Service]

Annexure

Annexure C — Affidavit of Service (copy, for Treasurer’s reference)

Practical notes before sending: Both instruments — this letter to the Treasurer and the Notice to the Minister for Planning — should be served on the same date by registered post with delivery confirmation retained. The Victorian Treasurer’s office is at the Department of Treasury and Finance, 1 Treasury Place, Melbourne VIC 3002. Confirm the correct account reference for voluntary contributions to the Consolidated Fund with the Department of Treasury and Finance before a bank cheque is drawn or an EFT is remitted — contact the Department of Treasury and Finance on (03) 9651 5111. Retain certified copies of both instruments and all proof of service and payment. The amount contributed should be determined solely by the contributor as a fair assessment of genuine public administration costs — it should not replicate or acknowledge any figure the Council has asserted. Note that the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 creates additional grounds for complaint and review not available in other States — the Victorian Ombudsman and VCAT each have jurisdiction over Charter complaints and this should be preserved as an active option if the Council does not respond substantively.

Western Australia

[LGL-2026-03-25-1]

Understood. The ratepayer is a private individual who has exhausted good faith engagement with a council that has failed to demonstrate Crown authority, and who now wishes to contribute directly to the Crown’s Consolidated Account and place the constitutional question formally before both the Minister and the Treasurer.

Two instruments are required as before: a Notice to the Minister for Planning and Lands, and a companion letter to the Treasurer.

INSTRUMENT 1 — NOTICE TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND LANDS

FORMAL NOTICE AND DEMAND

To the Minister for Planning and Lands, Western Australia

Pursuant to the Land Administration Act 1997 (WA), the Constitution Act 1889 (WA), the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), the Legal Profession Uniform Law (WA), the Australian Consumer Law as applied in Western Australia by the Fair Trading Act 2010 (WA), the Freedom of Information Act 1992 (WA), the Public Governance Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (Cth), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Magna Carta 1297, and at Common Law

FROM: [Full name], a living [man/woman], representative for [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] [Street Address] [Suburb WA Postcode] [Email] [Phone]

DATE: [Date of Service]

TO: The Honourable John Carey MLA Minister for Planning and Lands 11th Floor, Dumas House 2 Havelock Street WEST PERTH WA 6005

RE: Final Notice — Chronic Failure by the Shire of [Name] ABN [INSERT] (hereafter “the Council”) to Establish Crown Authority or Jurisdiction over Land Held under Crown Grant; Prior Quo Warranto Challenge and Formal Notices Unanswered; Constitutional Questions Concerning the Consolidated Account; Continued Threats of Enforcement by a Non-Crown Body Corporate; Voluntary Contribution Tendered Directly to the Crown’s Consolidated Account; and Demand for Ministerial Confirmation of Crown Position

Part I — Standing, Constitutional Foundation and Nature of This Notice

3. This Notice is the culmination of a chronological sequence of formal jurisdictional and authority challenges — each served upon the Council by registered mail, each demanding that the Council demonstrate by what Crown authority it asserted jurisdiction over the Land and claimed financial obligations from [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] as registered proprietor, and each met with silence, with demands for performance of obligations whose authority has never been established, or with threats of legal action and ultimately the threatened taking and selling of the Land in lieu of any lawful answer. It is not a complaint. It is not a request. It is a formal constitutional demand addressed to the Minister for Planning and Lands as the officer of the Crown with lawful authority and duty to safeguard the integrity of Crown grants under the Land Administration Act 1997 (WA).

4. The Crown, for the purposes of all written laws of Western Australia, means and includes the predecessors, heirs and successors of the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, and Head of the Commonwealth: Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) s 5. The Crown that made this Grant and the Crown whose authority is invoked in every statute relied upon by any body asserting obligations over the Land is one and the same continuous sovereign authority. There is no discontinuity, no gap, and no basis upon which a derivative statutory body may invoke Crown authority against a prior Crown Grant.

5. Every Bill passed by the Western Australian Parliament is of no legal effect unless duly assented to by or in the name of the Crown: Constitution Act 1889 (WA) s 2(3). Every statute under which any body claims authority over the Land derives its entire legal existence from the Crown — specifically from the statutory Australian Crown, whose title was created by statute in 1973 for use in relation to a geographic designation, and which postdates the Imperial Crown’s Grant by decades. No such statute can be construed as authorising the destruction or diminution of rights previously granted by the Crown’s own prerogative act absent the clearest and most explicit legislative expression: Potter v Minahan (1908) 7 CLR 277; Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427; Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476.

7. The Author places the Minister on notice of the following principle, established at common law and confirmed as a general standard of institutional conduct by the Supreme Court of Queensland in Johnston & Ors v Carroll [2024] QSC 2. The High Court of Australia confirmed in Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB (Marion’s Case) (1992) 175 CLR 218 that a person’s right to control what is done to their own person and property is a fundamental common law right applying in all Australian jurisdictions. The Queensland Supreme Court in Johnston confirmed, as a matter of general principle, that any exercise of institutional power over a person’s rights requires the decision-maker to identify the specific legal basis for that power, to demonstrate genuine prior consideration of the rights affected, and to establish that any limitation is specifically warranted. Western Australia does not have a statutory human rights act. That absence does not diminish the common law protections that apply in this jurisdiction, nor Australia’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including Article 1 (self-determination) and Article 17 (privacy and home). The Author calls upon the Council and every body asserting authority over the Land to meet the standard that Johnston confirms as a matter of general principle: identify the specific legal warrant, demonstrate that it was genuinely considered and applied before any power was exercised, and establish that any limitation of the rights of [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] in relation to the Land is specifically and demonstrably justified. No body that has asserted authority over the Land has yet met that standard.

Part II — The Crown Grant and Its Incidents

8. The Crown Grant conveyed the Land with the following specific and express incidents of title:

(a) Depth of grant: [Insert depth as stated in the Crown Grant.]

(e) Mineral reservation — reserved to the Crown in full: [Insert mineral reservation clause from the Crown Grant.]

9. The Crown Grant is a complete and self-contained instrument. It defines with precision what was granted, what was reserved, what obligations attach to the Land, and — critically — to whom those obligations run. Every reservation in the Crown Grant runs to the sovereign who made the Grant and to those who lawfully succeed to that sovereign capacity — each recognised as carrying the same authority by force of the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) s 5. The Grant alienates the fee simple to the grantee and his heirs — it does not alienate the reserved incidents. Those reserved incidents remain with the sovereign and pass to each successor in sovereignty, not to any derivative statutory body. Every financial obligation in the Crown Grant runs to the Crown in that continuous sovereign sense. The instrument contains no provision granting authority to any local council to levy rates, to any planning agency to vary the depth or use entitlements, or to any land registry to alter the incidents upon administrative conversion of the registration description. What is absent from the Crown Grant is as legally significant as what is present — powers not granted by the Crown to subsequent statutory bodies do not exist and cannot be assumed, implied, or asserted by threat.

10. The Author specifically draws the Minister’s attention to incident (b) above. The Crown Grant itself establishes the rent obligation attaching to the Land — running to the Crown and its heirs and successors. A local council asserting a rates obligation over the same Land is asserting an additional, parallel, and unauthorised financial obligation over land whose only lawful financial obligation runs to the Crown. The council is not the Crown. Its rates claim is not authorised by the Crown Grant. The revenues it collects do not flow to the Crown’s Consolidated Account. The Crown Grant already answers the question of what financial obligation the Land carries and to whom it runs — and the council’s rates claim is not that answer.

11. As the High Court established in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1, Crown sovereignty does not confer unlimited beneficial ownership or unlimited regulatory power over land — the Crown’s power is specific, bounded, and legally accountable. No statutory body can claim broader authority over the Land than the Crown itself possesses, and the Crown’s own instrument — the Crown Grant — defines precisely and exhaustively what authority exists in relation to the Land and in whose hands it is reposed.

12. The Council is a body corporate expressly constituted as such under s 2.5 of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA). As a body corporate it is, by the structural principle confirmed in s 11 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (Cth), and by direct application of the same principle at the State level, legally separate from the Crown. It is not the Crown. It cannot invoke Crown authority whilst simultaneously being legally separate from the Crown. It cannot claim Crown warrant for its collection activities whilst its revenues do not flow to the Crown’s Consolidated Account.

Part III — Chronological History of Challenge and Institutional Non-Response

13. The history of jurisdictional and authority challenge in relation to the Land is documented, uncontested, and capable of being attested to by Affidavit. It is set out below and is provided to the Minister as evidence upon which the Minister’s own statutory powers of investigation and intervention are engaged.

Quo Warranto Challenge

14. On or about [DATE], a formal challenge was served upon the Council by registered mail demanding, on a quo warranto basis, that the Council demonstrate by what Crown authority it asserted jurisdiction over the Land and claimed financial obligations from [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] as registered proprietor and rightful possessor of the Land under Crown Grant.

15. The challenge specifically required the Council to:

(a) Identify the unbroken chain of authority from the Crown to itself authorising it to assert obligations over Crown Grant land;

(b) Demonstrate that any financial obligation it claimed ran to the Crown and that revenues collected flowed to the Consolidated Account of Western Australia;

(c) Identify the judicial officer or officers by name who made any liability or enforcement order relied upon;

(d) Produce evidence that any person conducting enforcement proceedings held a current Australian practising certificate under the Legal Profession Uniform Law (WA).

16. The Council failed to answer the quo warranto challenge on its merits. It produced no evidence of Crown authority. It identified no legislative provision expressly authorising it to override Crown Grant incidents. It demonstrated no chain of authority from the Crown. It provided no evidence of Consolidated Account flows. It produced no sealed or judicially authenticated enforcement instruments. It produced no practising certificate evidence.

Notice of Default

17. Following the Council’s failure to respond substantively to the quo warranto challenge, a formal Notice of Default was served upon the Council by registered mail, recording the Council’s failure to establish its authority and placing the Council on notice that its continued assertion of obligations without establishing lawful Crown warrant constituted a knowing exercise of ultra vires power.

Notice of Estoppel

18. A formal Notice of Estoppel was subsequently served upon the Council by registered mail. By operation of estoppel, having failed to establish its jurisdiction and authority when formally challenged and put to proof, the Council is estopped from subsequently asserting that jurisdiction as though it had been established. A body that fails to answer a challenge to its authority cannot later rely upon that authority as if no challenge had been made.

Affidavit of Service

19. An Affidavit has been prepared and sworn, annexing and attesting to the service of all prior notices and recording the Council’s failure to respond substantively to any of them. This Affidavit is annexed to this Notice as Annexure C.

The Council’s Conduct — Threats Without Authority

20. Throughout this entire sequence the Council’s response has been characterised by continued assertion of financial obligation without demonstrated Crown warrant, escalating demands that [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] perform obligations whose authority has never been established, threats of legal action upon non-compliance, and ultimately the threatened taking and selling of the Land as the terminal enforcement mechanism. At no point has the Council:

(a) Demonstrated Crown authority for its claimed jurisdiction over the Land;

(b) Identified any legislative provision expressly authorising it to override Crown Grant incidents;

(c) Shown that revenues it collects flow to the Consolidated Account of Western Australia;

(d) Produced sealed, judicially authenticated enforcement instruments identifying by name the judicial officers responsible;

(e) Produced practising certificate evidence for persons conducting enforcement proceedings.

21. The Author observes that this pattern of conduct — assertion of financial obligation without demonstrated Crown warrant, demands for compliance with orders whose authority cannot be established, and the threatened taking and selling of land as the terminal step — is not the exercise of lawful Crown authority. It is the exercise of institutional power under colour of Crown authority that the Council cannot establish and has never established when formally challenged to do so. A body corporate legally separate from the Crown, asserting authority it cannot demonstrate, collecting revenues that do not flow to the Crown’s Consolidated Account, relying upon instruments it cannot authenticate, and threatening to take and sell land held under Crown Grant — is not exercising lawful Crown authority at any point in that process.

22. This conduct engages multiple provisions of the Australian Consumer Law as applied in Western Australia by the Fair Trading Act 2010 (WA). The Council, as a body corporate carrying on business, is directly and fully bound by the ACL: AGS Fact Sheet No 12 (Australian Government Solicitor, March 2011). The relevant provisions engaged include:

23. The Author does not accept, and has at no time accepted, the Council’s characterisation of [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] as a ratepayer. That characterisation is the Council’s unproven assertion, dependent upon the very jurisdiction being challenged, and is rejected accordingly.

Part IV — The Quo Warranto Demand Restated

24. By what warrant does the Council assert a financial obligation over the Land?

25. A statutory obligation is an obligation — whether to pay money, perform certain acts, or discharge certain duties — which is created by or arises out of a statute, as distinguished from one founded upon acts between parties or jural relationships: Black’s Law Dictionary (3rd ed, 1933), p 1657. Being a non-consensual statutory charge it does not require a contract — but it does require Crown authority, Crown warrant, and a Crown recipient. None of these have been established.

26. For the Council’s claim of financial obligation over the Land to be lawful, the Council must demonstrate:

(b) Express and unambiguous statutory authority to override or vary the incidents of a prior Crown Grant — as required by the principle of legality confirmed in APH Infosheet 23;

(c) That the obligation runs to the Crown — not to an ABN-registered body corporate legally separate from the Crown — and that revenues flow to the Consolidated Account of Western Australia: Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1899 (WA) s 64;

(d) That persons conducting any enforcement proceedings hold current Australian practising certificates under the Legal Profession Uniform Law (WA);

(e) Sealed, judicially authenticated instruments identifying by name the judicial officers who made any orders relied upon.

27. The Author raises the following constitutional point in relation to paragraph 26(c), which the Author invites both the Council and the Minister to address directly and with precision. Section 64 of the Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1899 (WA) provides that all taxes, imposts, rates and duties, and all territorial, casual and other revenues of the Crown from whatever source arising within the colony, over which the Legislature has power of appropriation, shall form one Consolidated Account. That provision expressly includes the word “rates” within the definition of revenues that must flow to the Consolidated Account if they constitute revenues of the Crown.

28. The constitutional tension this creates for any local government asserting a rates obligation over Crown Grant land is as follows. If the rates obligation is a legitimate exercise of Crown-derived authority over the Land, the question arises whether those revenues constitute revenues of the Crown required by s 64 to flow to the Consolidated Account. But the rates collected by the Council do not flow to the Consolidated Account. They flow to the municipal fund established under ss 6.6 and 6.7 of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) — a separate statutory fund entirely outside the Crown’s revenue structure, held by a body corporate that is not the Crown.

29. This creates an unresolved constitutional dilemma for the Council’s position. If the Council’s rating power is a legitimate exercise of Crown authority over Crown Grant land, then revenues it produces should constitute revenues of the Crown and should — by the operation of s 64 — flow to the Consolidated Account. They do not. Alternatively, if those revenues are not revenues of the Crown, then the Council is asserting a financial obligation over land whose only defined financial obligation runs to the Crown — as a non-Crown body, retaining the proceeds in a private statutory fund, with no mechanism by which those proceeds ever reach the Crown at all. On either analysis, the Council’s position is constitutionally untenable. Quod non apparet non est — what does not appear does not exist. The Council’s Crown authority over this Land has never been made to appear.

30. The Author further observes, consistently with the principle in paragraph 7 above, that the Council has at no point identified the specific legal warrant for each individual step in its enforcement process, demonstrated genuine prior consideration of the rights of [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] before asserting obligations or issuing demands for performance, or established that any limitation of those rights is specifically justified. The standard confirmed in Johnston as a matter of general principle has not been met at any step.

31. The Council has had ample opportunity to answer the quo warranto demand. It has not done so. It is estopped from doing so now. Its continued assertion of obligations and threats of enforcement in the face of unanswered formal challenge is the clearest possible evidence that it cannot ground its claimed authority in Crown warrant.

Part V — Voluntary Contribution to the Consolidated Account

32. The Author states without ambiguity that [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] does not refuse to contribute to the genuine administration of public services in the district in which the Land is situated. The Author recognises that public services are administered in that district and that a contribution to the cost of those services is appropriate. The Author’s position is, and has always been, that the constitutionally correct recipient of any such contribution is the Crown’s own Consolidated Account — not the municipal fund of a body corporate that has declined to demonstrate its Crown authority over Crown Grant land.

33. Consistently with that position, [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] has tendered a voluntary contribution to the Consolidated Account of Western Australia under s 8(3) of the Financial Management Act 2006 (WA), by concurrent letter of even date addressed to the Treasurer of Western Australia. The amount of that contribution has been determined by [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] as a fair and reasonable contribution to the genuine costs of public administration. It is not derived from and bears no relation to any figure asserted by the Council. It is intended to reach the Crown’s own Consolidated Account and to be applied to the genuine administration of public services — not to the operational overhead, executive remuneration, or ancillary expenditures of any intermediary body corporate.

34. The Author invites the Minister to note that this voluntary contribution to the Consolidated Account is made in the genuine spirit of civic contribution to the correct constitutional recipient. It is not a stratagem. It is not a refusal dressed as compliance. It is a direct and good faith tender to the Crown, made because the Crown — not the Council — is the entity to whom the Land’s obligations have always run.

Part VI — The Minister’s Position and Demand for Response

35. This Notice places the matter formally before the Minister for Planning and Lands as the officer of the Crown with specific statutory and executive responsibility for:

(a) The administration of the Land Administration Act 1997 (WA) and the integrity of Crown grants in Western Australia;

(b) The Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA) and the land title system operated by Landgate;

(c) The Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage, which administers the Land Use Management division responsible for Crown land in this State.

36. Under the principle of individual ministerial responsibility confirmed in APH Infosheet 23, the Minister is individually responsible for actions taken by departments and agencies within the ministerial portfolio. The integrity of the Imperial Crown grant system — the foundation upon which all freehold title in Western Australia ultimately rests — falls squarely within that responsibility, and has done so since the Commissioner of Crown Lands first administered Imperial grants in this colony in 1870.

37. The Author respectfully but firmly invites the Minister to confirm, on behalf of the Crown, the following matters:

(b) That the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA) and the operations of Landgate do not and cannot displace the incidents of an Imperial Crown Grant whose source is superior to State law;

(d) The Crown’s position on the constitutional question raised in paragraphs 27 to 29 above — specifically whether rates collected by the Council from Crown Grant land constitute revenues of the Crown for the purposes of s 64 of the Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1899 (WA), and if not, by what authority a non-Crown body retains those revenues in a private municipal fund in circumstances where the Land’s only defined financial obligation runs expressly to the Crown;

(e) Whether the voluntary contribution tendered by [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] to the Consolidated Account under s 8(3) of the Financial Management Act 2006 (WA) satisfies or stands in lieu of any obligation properly owing to the Crown in respect of the Land.

38. The Author does not seek conflict. The Author seeks clarity — constitutional clarity from the officer of the Crown most appropriately placed to provide it. If the Crown stands behind its own Grant, it should be possible for the Crown’s representative to confirm that in writing. If it cannot, that too is a matter of constitutional significance that belongs permanently on the record.

39. Silence by the Minister will be treated as consistent with the silence of the Council — as an implied concession that Crown authority for the imposition of financial obligations over the Land cannot be established — and will be added to the sworn record accordingly.

Part VII — Magna Carta and the Rule of Law

40. Magna Carta 1297 — a foundation document of Australian constitutional law confirmed in APH Infosheet 23, an original of which is held at Parliament House Canberra — established that no person shall have action taken against their property except by lawful judgment of their equals or by the law of the land, and that justice shall not be sold, denied, or deferred.

41. A body corporate, legally separate from the Crown, asserting authority it cannot establish, issuing demands for compliance with obligations whose Crown warrant has never been demonstrated, threatening legal action and the taking and selling of land held under Crown Grant, collecting revenues that do not flow to the Crown’s Consolidated Account but to its own private municipal fund, and relying upon unauthenticated instruments — is acting in direct contradiction of Magna Carta and the rule of law as confirmed in APH Infosheet 23.

42. The Crown — whose continuous authority is confirmed by Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) s 5 and whose assent is required for all legislation by Constitution Act 1889 (WA) s 2(3) — is the constitutional standard against which all of this conduct must be measured. The Grant was the Crown’s act. The Author asks no more than that the Crown confirm what its own act conveyed and that those acting in the Crown’s name be in a position to demonstrate that authority when it is formally and persistently demanded.

Veritas numquam perit — truth never perishes. The Crown Grant records what was granted, what was reserved, and to whom the obligations run. That record does not expire. It does not yield to administrative convenience. It does not give way to threats issued by a body corporate decades after the sovereign’s prerogative act. Nor does it yield to revenues diverted to a private municipal fund rather than to the Crown whose prerogative act created the only financial obligation the Land lawfully carries.

Part VIII — Reservation of Rights

43. The Author expressly reserves all rights and remedies at common law, in equity, and under statute, including:

(a) Application for judicial review in the Supreme Court of Western Australia on grounds of jurisdictional error, ultra vires, want of statutory authority, and breach of the principle of legality;

(b) Application to the State Administrative Tribunal for review of any decision affecting the Land;

(c) Complaint to Consumer Protection WA and the ACCC under the Australian Consumer Law for misleading and deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct, and harassment and coercion by a body corporate carrying on business;

(d) Complaint to the Ombudsman of Western Australia;

(e) Freedom of Information requests under the Freedom of Information Act 1992 (WA) directed to the Council, Landgate, and the Department;

(f) Application for mandamus compelling the Minister to perform any duty arising from this Notice;

(g) Addition of the Minister’s response or non-response to the sworn affidavit record of institutional failure to establish Crown authority over the Land;

(h) Such further and other relief as may be appropriate including referral to relevant authorities if the Council’s conduct in threatening to take and selling land without demonstrated Crown warrant constitutes unconscionable commercial conduct under colour of Crown authority.

44. Nothing in this Notice constitutes a waiver of any right. No act or omission on the part of the Author or [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] shall be taken as acquiescence in any claim of jurisdiction over the Land or its Crown Grant incidents.

45. Should the Minister fail to respond substantively within twenty-eight (28) days of receipt of this Notice, that failure will be recorded in the sworn affidavit record and treated as grounds for all remedies identified above.

Declaration

Date: [Date of Service]

Annexures

Annexure A — Crown Grant documentation, Volume/Folio [INSERT]
Annexure B — Certificate of Title, Volume/Folio [INSERT], showing dropped or altered incidents
Annexure C — Affidavit of Service attesting to service of all prior notices including quo warranto challenge, Notice of Default, Notice of Estoppel, and record of Council’s non-response
Annexure D — Council enforcement correspondence and instruments including threats of legal action and threatened taking and selling of the Land
Annexure E — Evidence of Council ABN registration
Annexure F — Evidence of Landgate ABN registration and corporate status

This Notice is a formal constitutional and legal instrument. It invokes the authority of the Crown, the Constitution Act 1889 (WA), the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), the Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1899 (WA) s 64, the Land Administration Act 1997 (WA), Magna Carta, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the decisions of the High Court of Australia in Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] HCA 34; (1923) 33 CLR 1, Trower v Commonwealth [1923] HCA 30; (1923) 32 CLR 585, and Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1, and the persuasive authority of Johnston & Ors v Carroll [2024] QSC 2. It should be brought immediately to the personal attention of the Minister for Planning and Lands and retained permanently on official file. Failure to respond substantively within twenty-eight days will be treated as institutional concession that Crown authority over the Land cannot be established and will be added to the sworn record accordingly.

INSTRUMENT 2 — COMPANION LETTER TO THE TREASURER

[Full name], a living [man/woman] Representative for [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] [Street Address] [Suburb WA Postcode] [Email] [Phone]

Date: [Date of Service]

The Honourable [Treasurer’s Full Name] Treasurer of Western Australia Department of Treasury 197 St Georges Terrace PERTH WA 6000

Re: Voluntary Contribution to the Consolidated Account under s 8(3) of the Financial Management Act 2006 (WA) — Crown Grant Land, Lot [X] on Diagram/Plan [Y], Certificate of Title Volume [X] Folio [X], formerly Crown Grant Volume/Folio [INSERT]

Reddite ergo quae sunt Caesaris Caesari — render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.

Your Honour,

1. Purpose of this letter

[Full name], a living [man/woman], acting as representative for [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS], writes to tender a voluntary contribution to the Consolidated Account of Western Australia, established by s 64 of the Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1899 (WA) and administered under s 8 of the Financial Management Act 2006 (WA).

This contribution is made in good faith and in the genuine desire to contribute to the administration of public services in the district in which the Land is situated. It is tendered directly to the constitutionally established revenue account of the Crown. The amount has been determined by [Full name] as a fair and reasonable contribution to the genuine costs of public administration — it is not derived from, and bears no relation to, any figure asserted by any other body. It is intended to reach the Crown’s own Consolidated Account and to be applied to the genuine administration of public services, not to the operational overhead, executive remuneration, or ancillary expenditures of any intermediary body corporate.

[Full name] invites the Treasurer to provide EFT banking details for the Consolidated Account so that this contribution may be remitted directly and without unnecessary delay. In the absence of those details, a bank cheque made payable to the Treasurer of Western Australia is held ready for dispatch upon request.

2. The land

The land the subject of this letter is:

The Land is held in fee simple under a Crown Grant issued by the Governor of Western Australia as representative of the Imperial Crown in its sovereign and prerogative capacity. The original Crown Grant contains express incidents including: a defined depth of grant; a rent obligation payable to the King and his heirs and successors; powers of resumption reserved to the Crown and those acting by Crown authority; a power to take indigenous timber and materials reserved to the Crown; and a comprehensive mineral reservation to the Crown. Those incidents run with the Land by the express terms of the Crown Grant. They have not been extinguished by any subsequent administrative conversion of the registration description. They have not been varied by any express act of the Crown. They remain in full force as the paramount title instrument in relation to the Land.

3. The constitutional basis for this contribution

Section 64 of the Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1899 (WA) provides that all taxes, imposts, rates and duties, and all territorial, casual and other revenues of the Crown from whatever source arising within Western Australia, over which the Legislature has power of appropriation, shall form one Consolidated Account.

Section 8(3) of the Financial Management Act 2006 (WA) provides that there may be credited to the Consolidated Account any grants, advances, contributions, repayments or other amounts as the Treasurer so determines. It is under this provision that the present voluntary contribution is tendered.

The rent obligation under the original Crown Grant is expressly payable to the King and his heirs and successors — that is, to those who lawfully succeed to the sovereign capacity, each recognised as carrying the same authority by force of the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) s 5. Any revenue properly characterised as arising from or in relation to Crown Grant land therefore belongs constitutionally in the Consolidated Account — not in the municipal fund of a body corporate established under the Local Government Act 1995 (WA). The municipal fund of the Shire of [Name] is a private statutory fund of a non-Crown body corporate. It is entirely separate from the Consolidated Account. The two funds are constitutionally and structurally distinct.

The Shire of [Name] is constituted under s 2.5 of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) as a body corporate legally separate from the Crown. It is not the Crown. It is not an heir or successor of the sovereign in any capacity. It does not collect in the name of the Crown. The revenues it collects do not flow to the Consolidated Account. It is therefore not the constitutionally correct recipient of any revenue arising from or attributable to obligations running under the Crown Grant.

[Full name] further notes that any body asserting financial obligations over the Land is, by the general principle confirmed in Johnston & Ors v Carroll [2024] QSC 2 as persuasive authority, required to identify the specific legal warrant for each such assertion, to demonstrate genuine prior consideration of the rights of [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] as holder of the full fee simple estate — both at law and in equity — before imposing any such obligation, and to establish that any limitation of those rights is specifically and demonstrably justified. The High Court confirmed in Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB (Marion’s Case) (1992) 175 CLR 218 that a person’s right to control what is done to their own person and property is a fundamental common law right applying in all Australian jurisdictions. No body asserting obligations over the Land has identified its specific warrant, demonstrated prior genuine consideration of those rights, or justified any limitation of them. This voluntary contribution to the Consolidated Account is made in that context — as a direct act toward the constitutionally correct recipient, entirely independent of any unwarranted assertion by any other body.

4. Prior engagement with the Shire of [Name]

[Full name], as representative for [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS], has served a series of formal written notices upon the Shire of [Name] by registered mail, each demanding that the Shire demonstrate:

(a) The unbroken chain of Crown authority from the Imperial Crown to itself by which it asserts authority to impose financial obligations upon land held under Crown Grant;

(b) The specific legislative provision expressly authorising a non-Crown body corporate to override or supplement the incidents of an Imperial Crown Grant;

(c) That revenues it collects flow to the Consolidated Account of Western Australia as required by s 64 of the Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1899 (WA).

The Shire has not provided any substantive response to those notices. In lieu of any lawful answer, the Shire has continued to assert financial obligations, issue demands for compliance with performance requirements whose authority has never been established, threaten legal action, and ultimately threaten the taking and selling of the Land. A formal Notice of Default and a formal Notice of Estoppel have been served. An Affidavit has been sworn attesting to the complete sequence of challenge and non-response. A Notice of equivalent constitutional content has been served concurrently upon the Minister for Planning and Lands.

This voluntary contribution to the Consolidated Account is made entirely independently of that sequence. It is not a response to any assertion by the Shire. It is a direct and voluntary act toward the Crown’s own revenue account, made because [Full name] recognises that the Land sits within a district in which public services are administered, and genuinely wishes to contribute to the cost of those services through the constitutionally correct channel.

5. What [Full name] requests of the Treasurer

[Full name] respectfully requests that the Treasurer:

(a) Provide EFT banking details for the Consolidated Account so that this contribution may be remitted directly upon receipt of those details;

(b) Accept this contribution and cause it to be credited to the Consolidated Account under s 8(3) of the Financial Management Act 2006 (WA);

(c) Provide written acknowledgment that the contribution has been received and credited to the Consolidated Account;

(d) Confirm in writing whether, in the Crown’s view, any further financial obligation to the Crown in respect of the Land at [address] remains outstanding; and

(e) If the Treasurer’s position is that this voluntary contribution to the Consolidated Account does not discharge or stand in lieu of any obligation properly owing to the Crown in respect of the Land, provide written advice identifying the specific provision of law by which any non-Crown body corporate legally separate from the Crown holds authority to collect revenue from land held under Imperial Crown Grant in substitution for or in addition to the Crown’s own revenue rights over that land.

6. Good faith

A response within 28 days of the date of this letter is respectfully requested.

Date: [Date of Service]

Practical notes before sending: Both instruments — this letter to the Treasurer and the Notice to the Minister for Planning and Lands — should be served on the same date by registered post with delivery confirmation retained, so that concurrent service can be attested to by Affidavit if required. If the Treasurer provides EFT details, remit promptly and retain the transaction confirmation as part of the permanent record. Retain certified copies of both instruments and all proof of service and payment. The amount contributed should be determined solely by the contributor as a fair assessment of genuine public administration costs — it should not replicate or acknowledge any figure the Council has asserted.

South Australia

[LGL-2026-03-25-2]

The SA-specific changes required are: the Minister (Nick Champion MP, Minister for Housing and Urban Development and Minister for Planning); the department address; the constitutional chain references (SA statutes); Landgate replaced with Land Services SA; the Local Government Act 1999 (SA); the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (SA); the Freedom of Information Act 1991 (SA); the Fair Trading Act 1987 (SA); the Constitution Act 1934 (SA); the Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA); the Consolidated Account reference (SA); and the Ombudsman SA. The Torrens system origin point is also noted where relevant. Both instruments follow.

INSTRUMENT 1 — NOTICE TO THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

FORMAL NOTICE AND DEMAND

To the Minister for Housing and Urban Development, South Australia

Pursuant to the Real Property Act 1886 (SA), the Constitution Act 1934 (SA), the Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA), the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (SA), the Australian Consumer Law as applied in South Australia by the Fair Trading Act 1987 (SA), the Freedom of Information Act 1991 (SA), the Public Governance Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (Cth), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Magna Carta 1297, and at Common Law

FROM: [Full name], a living [man/woman], representative for [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] [Street Address] [Suburb SA Postcode] [Email] [Phone]

DATE: [Date of Service]

TO: The Honourable Nick Champion MP Minister for Housing and Urban Development Minister for Planning Department for Housing and Urban Development GPO Box 1815 ADELAIDE SA 5001

RE: Final Notice — Chronic Failure by the [Council Name] ABN [INSERT] (hereafter “the Council”) to Establish Crown Authority or Jurisdiction over Land Held under Crown Grant; Prior Quo Warranto Challenge and Formal Notices Unanswered; Constitutional Questions Concerning the Consolidated Account; Continued Threats of Enforcement by a Non-Crown Body Corporate; Voluntary Contribution Tendered Directly to the Crown’s Consolidated Account; and Demand for Ministerial Confirmation of Crown Position

Part I — Standing, Constitutional Foundation and Nature of This Notice

3. The Author draws the Minister’s particular attention to the position of South Australia within this constitutional framework. The Torrens system of land title registration was introduced in South Australia by the Real Property Act 1858 (SA) — the world’s first Torrens legislation. Its age, however, confers upon it no greater constitutional authority than any other State registration scheme. A registration system of 1858 stands in precisely the same constitutional position as one created in any other decade — neither can condition, vary, or displace a title whose source is an Imperial Crown prerogative act superior to all State law. The High Court’s ruling in Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] HCA 34; (1923) 33 CLR 1 — that a title derived from a law superior to State law is wholly independent of State registration laws and State laws of any kind — applies with equal and undiminished force to the South Australian Lands Titles Office and to Land Services SA.

4. This Notice is the culmination of a chronological sequence of formal jurisdictional and authority challenges — each served upon the Council by registered mail, each demanding that the Council demonstrate by what Crown authority it asserted jurisdiction over the Land and claimed financial obligations from [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] as registered proprietor, and each met with silence, with demands for performance of obligations whose authority has never been established, or with threats of legal action and ultimately the threatened taking and selling of the Land in lieu of any lawful answer. It is not a complaint. It is not a request. It is a formal constitutional demand addressed to the Minister for Housing and Urban Development as the officer of the Crown with lawful authority and responsibility for the integrity of Crown grants and the land title system in South Australia.

5. The Crown, for the purposes of all written laws of South Australia, means and includes the predecessors, heirs and successors of the Sovereign: Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA). The Crown that made this Grant and the Crown whose authority is invoked in every statute relied upon by any body asserting obligations over the Land is one and the same continuous sovereign authority. There is no discontinuity, no gap, and no basis upon which a derivative statutory body may invoke Crown authority against a prior Crown Grant.

6. Every Bill passed by the South Australian Parliament is of no legal effect unless duly assented to by or in the name of the Crown: Constitution Act 1934 (SA). Every statute under which any body claims authority over the Land derives its entire legal existence from the Crown — specifically from the statutory Australian Crown, whose title was created by statute in 1973 for use in relation to a geographic designation, and which postdates the Imperial Crown’s Grant by decades. No such statute can be construed as authorising the destruction or diminution of rights previously granted by the Crown’s own prerogative act absent the clearest and most explicit legislative expression: Potter v Minahan (1908) 7 CLR 277; Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427; Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476.

8. The Author places the Minister on notice of the following principle, established at common law and confirmed as a general standard of institutional conduct by the Supreme Court of Queensland in Johnston & Ors v Carroll [2024] QSC 2. The High Court of Australia confirmed in Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB (Marion’s Case) (1992) 175 CLR 218 that a person’s right to control what is done to their own person and property is a fundamental common law right applying in all Australian jurisdictions. The Queensland Supreme Court in Johnston confirmed, as a matter of general principle, that any exercise of institutional power over a person’s rights requires the decision-maker to identify the specific legal basis for that power, to demonstrate genuine prior consideration of the rights affected, and to establish that any limitation is specifically warranted. South Australia does not have a statutory human rights act. That absence does not diminish the common law protections that apply in this jurisdiction, nor Australia’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including Article 1 (self-determination) and Article 17 (privacy and home). The Author calls upon the Council and every body asserting authority over the Land to meet the standard that Johnston confirms as a matter of general principle: identify the specific legal warrant, demonstrate that it was genuinely considered and applied before any power was exercised, and establish that any limitation of the rights of [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] in relation to the Land is specifically and demonstrably justified. No body that has asserted authority over the Land has yet met that standard.

Part II — The Crown Grant and Its Incidents

9. The Crown Grant conveyed the Land with the following specific and express incidents of title:

(a) Depth of grant: [Insert depth as stated in the Crown Grant.]

(e) Mineral reservation — reserved to the Crown in full: [Insert mineral reservation clause from the Crown Grant.]

10. The Crown Grant is a complete and self-contained instrument. It defines with precision what was granted, what was reserved, what obligations attach to the Land, and — critically — to whom those obligations run. Every reservation in the Crown Grant runs to the sovereign who made the Grant and to those who lawfully succeed to that sovereign capacity — each recognised as carrying the same authority by force of the Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA). The Grant alienates the fee simple to the grantee and his heirs — it does not alienate the reserved incidents. Those reserved incidents remain with the sovereign and pass to each successor in sovereignty, not to any derivative statutory body. Every financial obligation in the Crown Grant runs to the Crown in that continuous sovereign sense. The instrument contains no provision granting authority to any local council to levy rates, to any planning agency to vary the depth or use entitlements, or to any land registry to alter the incidents upon administrative conversion of the registration description. What is absent from the Crown Grant is as legally significant as what is present — powers not granted by the Crown to subsequent statutory bodies do not exist and cannot be assumed, implied, or asserted by threat.

11. The Author specifically draws the Minister’s attention to incident (b) above. The Crown Grant itself establishes the rent obligation attaching to the Land — running to the Crown and its heirs and successors. A local council asserting a rates obligation over the same Land is asserting an additional, parallel, and unauthorised financial obligation over land whose only lawful financial obligation runs to the Crown. The council is not the Crown. Its rates claim is not authorised by the Crown Grant. The revenues it collects do not flow to the Crown’s Consolidated Account. The Crown Grant already answers the question of what financial obligation the Land carries and to whom it runs — and the council’s rates claim is not that answer.

13. The Council is a body corporate constituted under the Local Government Act 1999 (SA). As a body corporate it is, by the structural principle confirmed in s 11 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (Cth), and by direct application of the same principle at the State level, legally separate from the Crown. It is not the Crown. It cannot invoke Crown authority whilst simultaneously being legally separate from the Crown. It cannot claim Crown warrant for its collection activities whilst its revenues do not flow to the Crown’s Consolidated Account.

Part III — Chronological History of Challenge and Institutional Non-Response

Quo Warranto Challenge

16. The challenge specifically required the Council to:

(a) Identify the unbroken chain of authority from the Crown to itself authorising it to assert obligations over Crown Grant land;

(b) Demonstrate that any financial obligation it claimed ran to the Crown and that revenues collected flowed to the Consolidated Account of South Australia;

(c) Identify the judicial officer or officers by name who made any liability or enforcement order relied upon;

(d) Produce evidence that any person conducting enforcement proceedings held a current Australian practising certificate under the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (SA).

17. The Council failed to answer the quo warranto challenge on its merits. It produced no evidence of Crown authority. It identified no legislative provision expressly authorising it to override Crown Grant incidents. It demonstrated no chain of authority from the Crown. It provided no evidence of Consolidated Account flows. It produced no sealed or judicially authenticated enforcement instruments. It produced no practising certificate evidence.

Notice of Default

Notice of Estoppel

Affidavit of Service

The Council’s Conduct — Threats Without Authority

(a) Demonstrated Crown authority for its claimed jurisdiction over the Land;

(b) Identified any legislative provision expressly authorising it to override Crown Grant incidents;

(c) Shown that revenues it collects flow to the Consolidated Account of South Australia;

(d) Produced sealed, judicially authenticated enforcement instruments identifying by name the judicial officers responsible;

(e) Produced practising certificate evidence for persons conducting enforcement proceedings.

22. The Author observes that this pattern of conduct — assertion of financial obligation without demonstrated Crown warrant, demands for compliance with orders whose authority cannot be established, and the threatened taking and selling of land as the terminal step — is not the exercise of lawful Crown authority. It is the exercise of institutional power under colour of Crown authority that the Council cannot establish and has never established when formally challenged. A body corporate legally separate from the Crown, asserting authority it cannot demonstrate, collecting revenues that do not flow to the Crown’s Consolidated Account, relying upon instruments it cannot authenticate, and threatening to take and sell land held under Crown Grant — is not exercising lawful Crown authority at any point in that process.

23. This conduct engages multiple provisions of the Australian Consumer Law as applied in South Australia by the Fair Trading Act 1987 (SA). The Council, as a body corporate carrying on business, is directly and fully bound by the ACL: AGS Fact Sheet No 12 (Australian Government Solicitor, March 2011). The relevant provisions engaged include:

Part IV — The Quo Warranto Demand Restated

25. By what warrant does the Council assert a financial obligation over the Land?

27. For the Council’s claim of financial obligation over the Land to be lawful, the Council must demonstrate:

(b) Express and unambiguous statutory authority to override or vary the incidents of a prior Crown Grant — as required by the principle of legality confirmed in APH Infosheet 23;

(c) That the obligation runs to the Crown — not to an ABN-registered body corporate legally separate from the Crown — and that revenues flow to the Consolidated Account of South Australia;

(d) That persons conducting any enforcement proceedings hold current Australian practising certificates under the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (SA);

(e) Sealed, judicially authenticated instruments identifying by name the judicial officers who made any orders relied upon.

28. The Author raises the following constitutional point in relation to paragraph 27(c). Section 83 of the Constitution Act 1934 (SA) provides that all taxes, imposts, rates and duties, and all territorial, casual and other revenues of the Crown from whatever source arising within South Australia, over which the Legislature has power of appropriation, shall form one Consolidated Account. That provision expressly includes the word “rates” within the definition of revenues that must flow to the Consolidated Account if they constitute revenues of the Crown.

29. The constitutional tension this creates for any local government asserting a rates obligation over Crown Grant land is as follows. If the rates obligation is a legitimate exercise of Crown-derived authority over the Land, the question arises whether those revenues constitute revenues of the Crown required by s 83 to flow to the Consolidated Account. But the rates collected by the Council do not flow to the Consolidated Account. They flow to the general fund of the Council established under the Local Government Act 1999 (SA) — a separate statutory fund entirely outside the Crown’s revenue structure, held by a body corporate that is not the Crown.

30. This creates an unresolved constitutional dilemma for the Council’s position. If the Council’s rating power is a legitimate exercise of Crown authority over Crown Grant land, then revenues it produces should constitute revenues of the Crown and should flow to the Consolidated Account. They do not. Alternatively, if those revenues are not revenues of the Crown, then the Council is asserting a financial obligation over land whose only defined financial obligation runs to the Crown — as a non-Crown body, retaining the proceeds in a private statutory fund, with no mechanism by which those proceeds ever reach the Crown at all. On either analysis, the Council’s position is constitutionally untenable. Quod non apparet non est — what does not appear does not exist. The Council’s Crown authority over this Land has never been made to appear.

Part V — Voluntary Contribution to the Consolidated Account

33. The Author states without ambiguity that [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] does not refuse to contribute to the genuine administration of public services in the district in which the Land is situated. The Author recognises that public services are administered in that district and that a contribution to the cost of those services is appropriate. The Author’s position is, and has always been, that the constitutionally correct recipient of any such contribution is the Crown’s own Consolidated Account — not the general fund of a body corporate that has declined to demonstrate its Crown authority over Crown Grant land.

34. Consistently with that position, [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] has tendered a voluntary contribution to the Consolidated Account of South Australia under s 8 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987 (SA), by concurrent letter of even date addressed to the Treasurer of South Australia. The amount of that contribution has been determined by [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] as a fair and reasonable contribution to the genuine costs of public administration. It is not derived from and bears no relation to any figure asserted by the Council. It is intended to reach the Crown’s own Consolidated Account and to be applied to the genuine administration of public services — not to the operational overhead, executive remuneration, or ancillary expenditures of any intermediary body corporate.

35. The Author invites the Minister to note that this voluntary contribution to the Consolidated Account is made in the genuine spirit of civic contribution to the correct constitutional recipient. It is not a stratagem. It is not a refusal dressed as compliance. It is a direct and good faith tender to the Crown, made because the Crown — not the Council — is the entity to whom the Land’s obligations have always run.

Part VI — Land Services SA and the Conversion of the Crown Grant

36. The Author draws the Minister’s attention to a further matter of constitutional significance. At some point during the [DECADE], the Lands Titles Office — now operated by Land Services SA under contract to the South Australian Government — purported to convert the registration description of the Land from the original Crown Grant Volume/Folio [INSERT] to a Certificate of Title under a different Volume/Folio [INSERT]. In that administrative conversion process, one or more of the express incidents of the Crown Grant appear to have been dropped or altered on the face of the Certificate of Title.

37. Land Services SA is a private entity operating under contract. The Registrar-General, through whose office the conversion was effected, is a statutory officer deriving authority from the Real Property Act 1886 (SA). No provision of that Act, however broadly construed, confers upon the Registrar-General or any contracted service provider the constitutional authority to vary, extinguish, or fail to carry forward the incidents of an Imperial Crown Grant by administrative conversion of a registration description. The constitutional authority to do so does not exist within the statutory chain.

38. The conversion of a Crown Grant to a Certificate of Title is an administrative act of registration. It is not a Crown Grant. It is not a prerogative act. It is not an act of the sovereign. The incidents of the Crown Grant attach to the Land itself — not to any particular registration description — and survive the administrative conversion unchanged and in full force. The Author calls upon the Minister to investigate this conversion and to confirm formally that the incidents of the Crown Grant as originally conveyed remain in full force and unaffected by the administrative conversion.

Part VII — The Minister’s Position and Demand for Response

39. This Notice places the matter formally before the Minister for Housing and Urban Development as the officer of the Crown with specific statutory and executive responsibility for:

(a) The administration of the Real Property Act 1886 (SA) and the integrity of the land title system in South Australia;

(b) The Office of the Registrar-General and, through the contractual oversight framework, the operations of Land Services SA;

(c) The planning system and any agency that has purported to vary Crown Grant conditions.

40. Under the principle of individual ministerial responsibility confirmed in APH Infosheet 23, the Minister is individually responsible for actions taken by departments and agencies within the ministerial portfolio. The integrity of the Imperial Crown grant system — the foundation upon which all freehold title in South Australia ultimately rests — falls squarely within that responsibility.

41. The Author respectfully but firmly invites the Minister to confirm, on behalf of the Crown, the following matters:

(b) That the Real Property Act 1886 (SA) and the operations of Land Services SA do not and cannot displace the incidents of an Imperial Crown Grant whose source is superior to State law;

(d) The Crown’s position on the constitutional question raised in paragraphs 28 to 30 above — specifically whether rates collected by the Council from Crown Grant land constitute revenues of the Crown for the purposes of s 83 of the Constitution Act 1934 (SA), and if not, by what authority a non-Crown body retains those revenues in a private fund in circumstances where the Land’s only defined financial obligation runs expressly to the Crown;

(e) Whether the voluntary contribution tendered by [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] to the Consolidated Account under the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987 (SA) satisfies or stands in lieu of any obligation properly owing to the Crown in respect of the Land.

Part VIII — Magna Carta and the Rule of Law

45. A body corporate, legally separate from the Crown, asserting authority it cannot establish, issuing demands for compliance with obligations whose Crown warrant has never been demonstrated, threatening legal action and the taking and selling of land held under Crown Grant, collecting revenues that do not flow to the Crown’s Consolidated Account but to its own private fund, and relying upon unauthenticated instruments — is acting in direct contradiction of Magna Carta and the rule of law as confirmed in APH Infosheet 23.

46. The Crown — whose continuous authority is confirmed by the Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA) and whose assent is required for all legislation by the Constitution Act 1934 (SA) — is the constitutional standard against which all of this conduct must be measured. The Grant was the Crown’s act. The Author asks no more than that the Crown confirm what its own act conveyed and that those acting in the Crown’s name be in a position to demonstrate that authority when it is formally and persistently demanded.

Veritas numquam perit — truth never perishes. The Crown Grant records what was granted, what was reserved, and to whom the obligations run. That record does not expire. It does not yield to administrative convenience. It does not give way to threats issued by a body corporate decades after the sovereign’s prerogative act. Nor does it yield to revenues diverted to a private fund rather than to the Crown whose prerogative act created the only financial obligation the Land lawfully carries.

Part IX — Reservation of Rights

47. The Author expressly reserves all rights and remedies at common law, in equity, and under statute, including:

(a) Application for judicial review in the Supreme Court of South Australia on grounds of jurisdictional error, ultra vires, want of statutory authority, and breach of the principle of legality;

(b) Application to the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) for review of any decision affecting the Land;

(c) Complaint to Consumer and Business Services SA and the ACCC under the Australian Consumer Law for misleading and deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct, and harassment and coercion by a body corporate carrying on business;

(d) Complaint to the Ombudsman SA;

(e) Freedom of Information requests under the Freedom of Information Act 1991 (SA) directed to the Council, Land Services SA, the Registrar-General, and the Department;

(f) Application for mandamus compelling the Minister to perform any duty arising from this Notice;

(g) Addition of the Minister’s response or non-response to the sworn affidavit record of institutional failure to establish Crown authority over the Land;

Declaration

Date: [Date of Service]

Annexures

Annexure A — Crown Grant documentation, Volume/Folio [INSERT]
Annexure B — Certificate of Title, Volume/Folio [INSERT], showing dropped or altered incidents
Annexure C — Affidavit of Service attesting to service of all prior notices including quo warranto challenge, Notice of Default, Notice of Estoppel, and record of Council’s non-response
Annexure D — Council enforcement correspondence and instruments including threats of legal action and threatened taking and selling of the Land
Annexure E — Evidence of Council ABN registration
Annexure F — Evidence of Land Services SA corporate status and contractual relationship with the Crown

This Notice is a formal constitutional and legal instrument. It invokes the authority of the Crown, the Constitution Act 1934 (SA), the Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA), the Real Property Act 1886 (SA), Magna Carta, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the decisions of the High Court of Australia in Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] HCA 34; (1923) 33 CLR 1, Trower v Commonwealth [1923] HCA 30; (1923) 32 CLR 585, and Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1, and the persuasive authority of Johnston & Ors v Carroll [2024] QSC 2. It should be brought immediately to the personal attention of the Minister for Housing and Urban Development and retained permanently on official file. Failure to respond substantively within twenty-eight days will be treated as institutional concession that Crown authority over the Land cannot be established and will be added to the sworn record accordingly.

INSTRUMENT 2 — COMPANION LETTER TO THE TREASURER OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

[Full name], a living [man/woman] Representative for [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] [Street Address] [Suburb SA Postcode] [Email] [Phone]

Date: [Date of Service]

The Honourable [Treasurer’s Full Name] Treasurer of South Australia Department of Treasury and Finance State Administration Centre 200 Victoria Square ADELAIDE SA 5000

Re: Voluntary Contribution to the Consolidated Account under the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987 (SA) — Crown Grant Land, Lot [X] on Diagram/Plan [Y], Certificate of Title Volume [X] Folio [X], formerly Crown Grant Volume/Folio [INSERT]

Reddite ergo quae sunt Caesaris Caesari — render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.

Your Honour,

1. Purpose of this letter

[Full name], a living [man/woman], acting as representative for [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS], writes to tender a voluntary contribution to the Consolidated Account of South Australia, established by s 83 of the Constitution Act 1934 (SA) and administered under the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987 (SA).

This contribution is made in good faith and in the genuine desire to contribute to the administration of public services in the district in which the Land is situated. It is tendered directly to the constitutionally established revenue account of the Crown. The amount has been determined by [Full name] as a fair and reasonable contribution to the genuine costs of public administration — it is not derived from, and bears no relation to, any figure asserted by any other body. It is intended to reach the Crown’s own Consolidated Account and to be applied to the genuine administration of public services, not to the operational overhead, executive remuneration, or ancillary expenditures of any intermediary body corporate.

[Full name] invites the Treasurer to provide EFT banking details for the Consolidated Account so that this contribution may be remitted directly and without unnecessary delay. In the absence of those details, a bank cheque made payable to the Treasurer of South Australia is held ready for dispatch upon request.

2. The land

The land the subject of this letter is:

The Land is held in fee simple under a Crown Grant issued by the Governor of South Australia as representative of the Imperial Crown in its sovereign and prerogative capacity. The original Crown Grant contains express incidents including: a defined depth of grant; a rent obligation payable to the King and his heirs and successors; powers of resumption reserved to the Crown and those acting by Crown authority; a power to take indigenous timber and materials reserved to the Crown; and a comprehensive mineral reservation to the Crown. Those incidents run with the Land by the express terms of the Crown Grant. They have not been extinguished by any subsequent administrative conversion of the registration description. They have not been varied by any express act of the Crown. They remain in full force as the paramount title instrument in relation to the Land.

3. The constitutional basis for this contribution

Section 83 of the Constitution Act 1934 (SA) provides that all taxes, imposts, rates and duties, and all territorial, casual and other revenues of the Crown from whatever source arising within South Australia, over which the Legislature has power of appropriation, shall form one Consolidated Account.

The Public Finance and Audit Act 1987 (SA) governs the receipt of moneys into the Consolidated Account. It is under the provisions of that Act that the present voluntary contribution is tendered.

The rent obligation under the original Crown Grant is expressly payable to the King and his heirs and successors — that is, to those who lawfully succeed to the sovereign capacity, each recognised as carrying the same authority by force of the Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA). Any revenue properly characterised as arising from or in relation to Crown Grant land therefore belongs constitutionally in the Consolidated Account — not in the general fund of a body corporate established under the Local Government Act 1999 (SA). The general fund of the Council is a private statutory fund of a non-Crown body corporate. It is entirely separate from the Consolidated Account. The two funds are constitutionally and structurally distinct.

The Council is constituted under the Local Government Act 1999 (SA) as a body corporate legally separate from the Crown. It is not the Crown. It is not an heir or successor of the sovereign in any capacity. It does not collect in the name of the Crown. The revenues it collects do not flow to the Consolidated Account. It is therefore not the constitutionally correct recipient of any revenue arising from or attributable to obligations running under the Crown Grant.

[Full name] further notes that any body asserting financial obligations over the Land is, by the general principle confirmed in Johnston & Ors v Carroll [2024] QSC 2 as persuasive authority, required to identify the specific legal warrant for each such assertion, to demonstrate genuine prior consideration of the rights of [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS] as holder of the full fee simple estate — both at law and in equity — before imposing any such obligation, and to establish that any limitation of those rights is specifically and demonstrably justified. The High Court confirmed in Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB (Marion’s Case) (1992) 175 CLR 218 that a person’s right to control what is done to their own person and property is a fundamental common law right applying in all Australian jurisdictions. No body asserting obligations over the Land has identified its specific warrant, demonstrated prior genuine consideration of those rights, or justified any limitation of them. This voluntary contribution to the Consolidated Account is made in that context — as a direct act toward the constitutionally correct recipient, entirely independent of any unwarranted assertion by any other body.

4. Prior engagement with the Council

[Full name], as representative for [FULL NAME IN CAPITALS], has served a series of formal written notices upon the Council by registered mail, each demanding that the Council demonstrate:

(a) The unbroken chain of Crown authority from the Imperial Crown to itself by which it asserts authority to impose financial obligations upon land held under Crown Grant;

(b) The specific legislative provision expressly authorising a non-Crown body corporate to override or supplement the incidents of an Imperial Crown Grant;

(c) That revenues it collects flow to the Consolidated Account of South Australia as required by s 83 of the Constitution Act 1934 (SA).

This voluntary contribution to the Consolidated Account is made entirely independently of that sequence. It is not a response to any assertion by the Council. It is a direct and voluntary act toward the Crown’s own revenue account, made because [Full name] recognises that the Land sits within a district in which public services are administered, and genuinely wishes to contribute to the cost of those services through the constitutionally correct channel.

5. What [Full name] requests of the Treasurer

[Full name] respectfully requests that the Treasurer:

(a) Provide EFT banking details for the Consolidated Account so that this contribution may be remitted directly upon receipt of those details;

(b) Accept this contribution and cause it to be credited to the Consolidated Account under the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987 (SA);

(c) Provide written acknowledgment that the contribution has been received and credited to the Consolidated Account;

(d) Confirm in writing whether, in the Crown’s view, any further financial obligation to the Crown in respect of the Land at [address] remains outstanding; and

6. Good faith

A response within 28 days of the date of this letter is respectfully requested.

Date: [Date of Service]

Annexure

Annexure C — Affidavit of Service (copy, for Treasurer’s reference)

Practical notes before sending: Both instruments — this letter to the Treasurer and the Notice to the Minister for Housing and Urban Development — should be served on the same date by registered post with delivery confirmation retained. The SA Treasurer’s office is at the Department of Treasury and Finance, State Administration Centre, 200 Victoria Square, Adelaide SA 5000. Confirm the correct account reference for voluntary contributions to the Consolidated Account with the Department of Treasury and Finance before a bank cheque is drawn or an EFT is remitted. Retain certified copies of both instruments and all proof of service and payment. The amount contributed should be determined solely by the contributor as a fair assessment of genuine public administration costs — it should not replicate or acknowledge any figure the Council has asserted.

Last Updated 6 months ago

More share platforms

New South Wales

INSTRUMENT 1 — NOTICE TO THE MINISTER FOR LANDS AND PROPERTY, NEW SOUTH WALES

FORMAL NOTICE AND DEMAND

To the Minister for Lands and Property, New South Wales

Part I — Standing, Constitutional Foundation and Nature of This Notice

Part II — The Crown Grant and Its Incidents

Part III — Chronological History of Challenge and Institutional Non-Response

Part IV — The Quo Warranto Demand Restated

Part V — Voluntary Contribution to the Consolidated Fund

Part VI — NSW Land Registry Services and the Conversion of the Crown Grant

Part VII — The Minister’s Position and Demand for Response

Part VIII — Magna Carta and the Rule of Law

Part IX — Reservation of Rights

Declaration

Annexures

INSTRUMENT 2 — COMPANION LETTER TO THE TREASURER OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Annexure

Victoria

INSTRUMENT 1 — NOTICE TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING, VICTORIA

FORMAL NOTICE AND DEMAND

To the Minister for Planning, Victoria

Part I — Standing, Constitutional Foundation and Nature of This Notice

Part II — The Crown Grant and Its Incidents

Part III — Chronological History of Challenge and Institutional Non-Response

Part IV — The Quo Warranto Demand Restated

Part V — Voluntary Contribution to the Consolidated Fund

Part VI — Land Use Victoria and the Conversion of the Crown Grant

Part VII — The Minister’s Position and Demand for Response

Part VIII — Magna Carta and the Rule of Law

Part IX — Reservation of Rights

Declaration

Annexures

INSTRUMENT 2 — COMPANION LETTER TO THE TREASURER OF VICTORIA

Annexure

Western Australia

INSTRUMENT 1 — NOTICE TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND LANDS

FORMAL NOTICE AND DEMAND

To the Minister for Planning and Lands, Western Australia

Part I — Standing, Constitutional Foundation and Nature of This Notice

Part II — The Crown Grant and Its Incidents

Part III — Chronological History of Challenge and Institutional Non-Response

Part IV — The Quo Warranto Demand Restated

Part V — Voluntary Contribution to the Consolidated Account

Part VI — The Minister’s Position and Demand for Response

Part VII — Magna Carta and the Rule of Law

Part VIII — Reservation of Rights

Declaration

Annexures

INSTRUMENT 2 — COMPANION LETTER TO THE TREASURER

South Australia

INSTRUMENT 1 — NOTICE TO THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

FORMAL NOTICE AND DEMAND

To the Minister for Housing and Urban Development, South Australia

Part I — Standing, Constitutional Foundation and Nature of This Notice

Part II — The Crown Grant and Its Incidents

Part III — Chronological History of Challenge and Institutional Non-Response

Part IV — The Quo Warranto Demand Restated

Part V — Voluntary Contribution to the Consolidated Account

Part VI — Land Services SA and the Conversion of the Crown Grant

Part VII — The Minister’s Position and Demand for Response

Part VIII — Magna Carta and the Rule of Law

Part IX — Reservation of Rights

Declaration

Annexures

INSTRUMENT 2 — COMPANION LETTER TO THE TREASURER OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Annexure

General Information

Public Notices

Categories

Donations

Log In

Log In