Australian Capital Territory v Pinter [2002] FCAFC 186

Australian Capital Territory v Pinter [2002] FCAFC 186

By majority, the Full Court held that the right to claim compensation for pain and suffering under the former Act, when an application had already been made and was pending, constituted 'property' for the purposes of s 23 of the Self-Government Act, and that retrospective legislative extinguishment of such rights by s 16(2) amounted to an acquisition of property by the Territory otherwise than on just terms, contrary to the Act. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Australian Capital Territory; First Respondent: Andrew Michael Pinter; Second Respondent: Jasmin Copelj as next friend for Erol Copelj; Third Respondent: Andreas Fokas; Fourth Respondent: Iris Frank; Intervener: Attorney-General for the Commonwealth (Intervener)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment After Full Court Hearing
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Acquisition of Property on Just Terms, Statutory Rights as Property, Retrospective Legislation, Territory Legislative Powers, Compensation Schemes
Constitutional Law Statutory Interpretation Acquisition of Property on Just Terms Statutory Rights as Property Retrospective Legislation Territory Legislative Powers Compensation Schemes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Capital Territory

Appellant

Andrew Michael Pinter

First Respondent

Jasmin Copelj as next friend for Erol Copelj

Second Respondent

Andreas Fokas

Third Respondent

Iris Frank

Fourth Respondent

Attorney-General for the Commonwealth (Intervener)

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment After Full Court Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s 16(2) of the Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Act 1999 (ACT) is invalid due to inconsistency with s 23(1)(a) of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Cth) (acquisition of property on other than just terms)
  2. 2 Whether a right to claim statutory compensation for pain and suffering is 'property' for constitutional purposes
  3. 3 Whether extinguishing pending claims for compensation for pain and suffering under statute constitutes an acquisition of property on other than just terms

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the Full Court held that the right to claim compensation for pain and suffering under the former Act, when an application had already been made and was pending, constituted 'property' for the purposes of s 23 of the Self-Government Act, and that retrospective legislative extinguishment of such rights by s 16(2) amounted to an acquisition of property by the Territory otherwise than on just terms, contrary to the Act. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The appellant pay the respondents' costs.