100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 44 - 46 out of 128 pages.
Acquisition may extend to:Entry by Cth of exclusive possession to land: DalzielDisplacement/replacement of company directors: Bank Nationalisation CaseExtinguishment of a chose of action arising under general law – right to sue for damages: GeorgiadisExtinguishment resulting in a direct benefit or financial gain: GeorgiadisExtinction of a statutory right or proprietary interest where the right involves a reciprocal liability on the part of the cth:oNewcrest Mining v Cth- various mining leases near Kakadu National Park –Cth extended boundaries of that park to include areas of the mining leaseswithout provision for compensation. Held this extinction was an acquisition ofpropertyBrennan – as a result of extension, property of cth enhanced,therefore acquisition.oCth v WMC Resources – WMC part of joint venture with 6 year permit toexplore for petroleum in Timor sea, area in dispute between Aus andIndonesia. This area split into 3 parts – 1 for Aus, 1 for Indo, 1 to shareadministration of. Mining permit was in 1st, and Cth passed provisionsextinguishing any permitsHeld – not an acquisition of property as there was no reciprocalliabilityof the Cth as the area was not its property – contrary toNewcrest, the land did not becomes Cth property.When Cth grants rights under statute by HoP, it also has power toextinguish those rightsBut might not extend to:Mere extinction/diminution of a proprietary right: Aus Tape ManufacturersInterfering with packaging/affecting intellectual property and use of trademarks wherethe Commonwealth doesn’t actually acquireproperty: Plain Packaging CaseStatutory entitlements not based on antecedent property rights that are ‘inherently susceptible to variation’: PeverillMere restriction on use of property, that does not confer a measurable or conferrable advantage to the Commonwealth: Newcrestcf WMC; Tas Dam CaseLaws concerned with the adjustment of competing rights, claims or obligations of persons in a particular relationship/area of activity.Acquisitions which do not permit of just terms – not concerned with law imposing fine/penalty, including by way of forfeiture: Re DPP v Ex parte LawlerAcquisition PrinciplesNo acquisition if through prerogative44 | P a g e
Nick Jackman Sem 1 2014oE.g. seize and destroy property for defence purposes – no duty to pay compensation if in imminent danger of capture: Burmah Oil v Lord AdvocateoIf no imminent danger, seizure and destruction under CL requires payment:Burmah OilNo acquisition if consensual/negotiated agreements: TPC v Tootho‘Just terms’ presupposes inability of owner to set price: TPC v ToothoPractical compulsion may be enough:John & Cooke v Cth and Poulton v Cth– war-time regulations left wool growers with choice to sell to cth or store until war is over – held consensualA-G (NSW) v Homebush Flour– ‘practical compulsion’ was treated as being the same as legal compulsionCth v Huon– Company did not contest acquisition, so Latham CJ thought