A Supreme Court judge has reserved his position on a constitutional question concerning compensation for property owners affected by statutory electricity rights.
The case involves the Electricity Supply Board, Paul Good, and appellants Peter and Rose O’Reilly. The short judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Woulfe on 5 June 2025.
Woulfe J said he had read a draft judgment which Mr Justice Murray proposed to deliver in the proceedings. He agreed with Murray J’s reasoning and conclusions on every issue other than the constitutional question.
That issue concerned compensation for rights imposed under section 53 of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1927, as amended. The question identified by Woulfe J was whether legislation would be constitutionally valid if compensation excluded losses caused by a reduction in the value of property arising from the injurious effects experienced by landowners such as the O’Reillys.
Woulfe J said he had doubts about Murray J’s conclusion that such an exclusion would not be constitutionally invalid.
He did not, however, decide the point. Instead, he said he preferred to reserve his position until a case in which resolution of the constitutional issue was necessary.
That distinction is significant. A court can sometimes resolve an appeal on narrower legal grounds without determining a wider constitutional question. Woulfe J considered this to be such a case.
The judgment therefore records his agreement with the proposed reasoning and conclusions on the other issues, while leaving his own view on the constitutional validity of the compensation limitation open.
This individual judgment does not set out the underlying facts in detail, reproduce Murray J’s reasoning, or state the Supreme Court’s final collective order. Those matters cannot be established from this source alone.