Wikisource

Page:Hocking v Director-General of the National Archives of Australia.pdf/79

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

73.

detinue and replevin and equitable remedies for delivery up of chattels. Unsurprisingly, it did not do so.

202 Despite its long history of exposition and development at common law, the concept of "property" in relation to a chattel has sometimes been the subject of confusion by loose thinking and expressions of "common speech"[1]. For instance, "property" is sometimes used, by "false thinking"[2], to describe a thing that is the subject of rights: "That book is my property". In more precise thought, it has been long recognised that when the concept of property is used in law in the context of a tangible thing it describes the legal relationship between a person and a thing rather than the thing itself. The focus is therefore upon the nature of the legal relationship between a person and a thing.

203 Because the relationship between a person and a thing is metaphysical – that is, abstracted from the physical thing – there is a tendency in the case law, adopted at times in submissions on this appeal, to describe that legal relationship between person and thing by metaphors and slogans such as a "bundle of rights"[3] or "a legally endorsed concentration of power over things"[4]. Although these expressions can occasionally be helpful in directing thinking, they should not control analysis. They have serious "limits as an analytical tool or accurate

  1. ↑ Bentham, "An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation", in Bowring (ed), The Works of Jeremy Bentham (1843), vol 1 at 108. See also Minister of State for the Army v Dalziel (1944) 68 CLR 261 at 276; White v Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) (2011) 243 CLR 478 at 485 [10].
  2. ↑ Yanner v Eaton (1999) 201 CLR 351 at 366 [18].
  3. ↑ Minister of State for the Army v Dalziel (1944) 68 CLR 261 at 285; Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 207; Yanner v Eaton (1999) 201 CLR 351 at 366 [17]; Western Australia v Ward (2002) 213 CLR 1 at 95 [95], 262 [615], 263 [618], 273 [638]; Telstra Corporation Ltd v The Commonwealth (2008) 234 CLR 210 at 230 [44]; Wurridjal v The Commonwealth (2009) 237 CLR 309 at 421–422 [296], see also at 360 [89]; White v Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) (2011) 243 CLR 478 at 485 [10]; JT International SA v The Commonwealth (2012) 250 CLR 1 at 32 [37], 107 [299]–[300].
  4. ↑ Yanner v Eaton (1999) 201 CLR 351 at 366 [18]; Telstra Corporation Ltd v The Commonwealth (2008) 234 CLR 210 at 230–231 [44]; Wurridjal v The Commonwealth (2009) 237 CLR 309 at 421–422 [296], see also at 360 [89]; White v Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) (2011) 243 CLR 478 at 485 [10]; JT International SA v The Commonwealth (2012) 250 CLR 1 at 83 [218].
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:Hocking_v_Director-General_of_the_National_Archives_of_Australia.pdf/79&oldid=14416142"