Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia [2018] FCAFC 17

Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia [2018] FCAFC 17

Section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution was not engaged because neither Commonwealth legislation nor the relevant formal or informal agreements required the State to acquire or restrict the appellant's property or rights on other than just terms; the regulatory scheme and intergovernmental cooperation left the State...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From a Single Judge of Federal Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['acquisition of Property (constitution S 51(xxxi))' 'just Terms Compensation' 'state Environmental Regulation' 'native Vegetation Laws' 'commonwealth State Intergovernmental Agreements' 'unjust Enrichment' 'action on the Case' 'federal Financial Assistance Under Constitution S 96']
['constitutional Law' 'administrative Law'] ['acquisition of Property (constitution S 51(xxxi))' 'just Terms Compensation' 'state Environmental Regulation' 'native Vegetation Laws' 'commonwealth State Intergovernmental Agreements' 'unjust Enrichment' 'action on the Case' 'federal Financial Assistance Under Constitution S 96']

Source-derived case record

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From a Single Judge of Federal Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether State laws restricting native vegetation clearance effected an acquisition of property within s 51(xxxi) of the Constitution' 'Whether Commonwealth and NSW acted jointly or by informal arrangement to acquire the appellant’s property for Commonwealth purposes' 'Whether the Commonwealth obtained a proprietary benefit through the regulatory regime sufficient for s 51(xxxi)' "Was the appellant offered 'just terms' compensation" 'Was the Commonwealth unjustly enriched or was the State liable in trespass or action on the case']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution was not engaged because neither Commonwealth legislation nor the relevant formal or informal agreements required the State to acquire or restrict the appellant's property or rights on other than just terms; the regulatory scheme and intergovernmental cooperation left the State free to determine the form and content of its laws. Any sterilisation of rights was not accompanied by a proprietary benefit to the Commonwealth, and the claim of a joint action or informal arrangement was not substantiated. The appellant was offered compensation reflecting the market value, and all claims for unjust enrichment, trespass, or action on the case failed in the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' 'Within 21 days, the parties should seek to agree orders which otherwise give effect to these reasons. If unable to reach agreement, including on costs and whether there should be lump sum costs orders, each party should file and serve written submissions (not exceeding 10 pages) in...