French CJ
16.
involve "a statutory assurance of exclusive use, not a positive right or authority to use." On that basis the imposition of restrictions on their use would take nothing away from the rights granted. Therefore, it was submitted, no property had been taken by the TPP Act. BAT stigmatised that argument as formalistic, observing that rights of exclusion are of the essence of all proprietary rights[1]. Plainly, not all property rights are defined only by rights of exclusion. In law the term "property" generally refers to "a legal relationship with a thing"[2] and in many cases is helpfully described as "a bundle of rights"[3]. However, BAT correctly submitted that rights to exclude others from using property have no substance if all use of the property is prohibited.
The Commonwealth's submission points to a characteristic of the plaintiffs' asserted rights which may be relevant in determining, inter alia, whether or not they can be said to have been the subject of acquisition in terms of any benefit that could be said to have accrued to the Commonwealth. That consideration does not involve an acceptance of the proposition that rights were not taken in the sense that JTI and BAT were deprived of their ability to enjoy the fruits of their statutory monopolies.
BAT complained of acquisition of its goodwill. The concept of goodwill as property, and its characterisation as property or a proprietary right, arise in different contexts, discussed at length in the joint judgment in Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Murry[4]. As their Honours pointed out[5]:
"Goodwill is correctly identified as property, therefore, because it is the legal right or privilege to conduct a business in substantially the same manner and by substantially the same means that have attracted custom to it." (footnote omitted)
- ↑ Yanner v Eaton (1999) 201 CLR 351 at 365–366 [17]–[18] per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Kirby and Hayne JJ; [1999] HCA 53, citing Gray, "Property in Thin Air", (1991) 50 Cambridge Law Journal 252 at 299.
- ↑ Yanner v Eaton (1999) 201 CLR 351 at 365–366 [17] per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Kirby and Hayne JJ.
- ↑ Telstra Corporation Ltd v The Commonwealth (2008) 234 CLR 210 at 230–231 [44]; [2008] HCA 7. See also White v Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) (2011) 243 CLR 478 at 485 [10] per French CJ, Crennan and Bell JJ; [2011] HCA 20; Yanner v Eaton (1999) 201 CLR 351 at 365–366 [17] per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Kirby and Hayne JJ.
- ↑ (1998) 193 CLR 605; [1998] HCA 42.
- ↑ (1998) 193 CLR 605 at 615 [23] per Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ.
