Acquisition may extend to Entry by Cth of exclusive possession to land Dalziel

Acquisition may extend to entry by cth of exclusive

This preview shows page 44 - 46 out of 128 pages.

Acquisition may extend to: Entry by Cth of exclusive possession to land: Dalziel Displacement/replacement of company directors : Bank Nationalisation Case Extinguishment of a chose of action arising under general law – right to sue for damages: Georgiadis Extinguishment resulting in a direct benefit or financial gain: Georgiadis Extinction of a statutory right or proprietary interest where the right involves a reciprocal liability on the part of the cth: o Newcrest Mining v Cth - various mining leases near Kakadu National Park – Cth extended boundaries of that park to include areas of the mining leases without provision for compensation. Held this extinction was an acquisition of property Brennan – as a result of extension, property of cth enhanced, therefore acquisition. o Cth v WMC Resources – WMC part of joint venture with 6 year permit to explore for petroleum in Timor sea, area in dispute between Aus and Indonesia. This area split into 3 parts – 1 for Aus, 1 for Indo, 1 to share administration of. Mining permit was in 1 st , and Cth passed provisions extinguishing any permits Held – not an acquisition of property as there was no reciprocal liability of the Cth as the area was not its property – contrary to Newcrest, the land did not becomes Cth property. When Cth grants rights under statute by HoP, it also has power to extinguish those rights But might not extend to: Mere extinction/diminution of a proprietary right: Aus Tape Manufacturers Interfering with packaging/affecting intellectual property and use of trademarks where the Commonwealth doesn’t actually acquire property: Plain Packaging Case Statutory entitlements not based on antecedent property rights that are ‘inherently susceptible to variation’: Peverill Mere restriction on use of property, that does not confer a measurable or conferrable advantage to the Commonwealth: Newcrest cf WMC; Tas Dam Case Laws 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 Lawler Acquisition Principles No acquisition if through prerogative 44 | P a g e
Image of page 44
Nick Jackman Sem 1 2014 o E.g. seize and destroy property for defence purposes – no duty to pay compensation if in imminent danger of capture: Burmah Oil v Lord Advocate o If no imminent danger, seizure and destruction under CL requires payment: Burmah Oil No acquisition if consensual/negotiated agreements: TPC v Tooth o ‘Just terms’ presupposes inability of owner to set price: TPC v Tooth o Practical 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 consensual A-G (NSW) v Homebush Flour – ‘practical compulsion’ was treated as being the same as legal compulsion Cth v Huon – Company did not contest acquisition, so Latham CJ thought
Image of page 45
Image of page 46

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture