Nelungaloo Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [1950] UKPCHCA 2

Nelungaloo Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [1950] UKPCHCA 2

The plea to jurisdiction was upheld. The issue of whether reg. 19 provides 'just terms' raises a question as to the limits inter se of the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and the States within s. 74 of the Constitution. As the appellant did not obtain the certificate from the High Court, the Privy Council lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Parties
Appellant: Nelungaloo Proprietary Limited; Respondents: The Commonwealth and others
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 July 1950
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Privy Council Appellate Decision From High Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Limits Inter Se of Commonwealth and State Powers, Just Terms for Compulsory Acquisition, Privy Council Jurisdiction, Compulsory Acquisition of Wheat, Interpretation of S. 51 (xxxi.) of the Constitution, Validity of Regulations Under Wartime Legislation
Constitutional Law Limits Inter Se of Commonwealth and State Powers Just Terms for Compulsory Acquisition Privy Council Jurisdiction Compulsory Acquisition of Wheat Interpretation of S. 51 (xxxi.) of the Constitution Validity of Regulations Under Wartime Legislation

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nelungaloo Proprietary Limited

Appellant

The Commonwealth and others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Privy Council Appellate Decision From High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the question of 'just terms' for acquisition under s. 51 (xxxi.) of the Commonwealth Constitution is a question as to limits inter se of Commonwealth and State powers
  2. 2 Whether an appeal to the Privy Council from the High Court requires a s. 74 certificate in a case involving such an 'inter se' question

Ratio Decidendi

The plea to jurisdiction was upheld. The issue of whether reg. 19 provides 'just terms' raises a question as to the limits inter se of the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and the States within s. 74 of the Constitution. As the appellant did not obtain the certificate from the High Court, the Privy Council lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction; Privy Council has no jurisdiction without s. 74 certificate.
  • Appellant to pay the costs of the appeal (later varied: appellant to pay one-half of the respondents’ costs).