Page:JT International SA v Commonwealth of Australia.pdf/44

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

Gummow J

34.

modification or extinguishment does not automatically remove a statutory right from the scope of s 51(xxxi)[1].

Putting to one side statutory rights which replace existing general law rights[2], the extent to which a right created by statute may be modified by subsequent legislation without amounting to an acquisition of property under s 51(xxxi) must depend upon the nature of the right created by statute. It may be evident in the express terms of the statute that the right is subject to subsequent statutory variation[3]. It may be clear from the scope of the rights conferred by the statute that what appears to be a new impingement on the rights was in fact always a limitation inherent in those rights[4]. The statutory right may also be a part of a scheme of statutory entitlements which will inevitably require modification over time[5]."

It should be accepted that while the registered trade marks owe their legal character to their registration under the TMA, rather than to the general law, it would be an error to proceed on the footing that because some valuable rights conferred by statute, such as fishing licences[6] and petroleum exploration licences[7], have been held to fall outside the constitutional criterion of "property", no right sourced in federal law may fall within it.

Such licences as those just mentioned commonly are granted so as to lift a statutory prohibition imposed upon engagement in the activity in question and the grant is expressly made subject to the terms of the statutory regime as they stand from time to time. That is not the case with the various species of


  1. Attorney-General (NT) v Chaffey (2007) 231 CLR 651 at 664 [23]–[25] per Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ, approved in Telstra Corporation Ltd v The Commonwealth (2008) 234 CLR 210 at 232 [49] per Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan and Kiefel JJ; [2008] HCA 7.
  2. Georgiadis v Australian and Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (1994) 179 CLR 297 at 305–306 per Mason CJ, Deane and Gaudron JJ.
  3. Attorney-General (NT) v Chaffey (2007) 231 CLR 651; see also The Commonwealth v WMC Resources Ltd (1998) 194 CLR 1.
  4. Telstra Corporation Ltd v The Commonwealth (2008) 234 CLR 210.
  5. Health Insurance Commission v Peverill (1994) 179 CLR 226.
  6. Bienke v Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (1996) 63 FCR 567.
  7. The Commonwealth v WMC Resources Ltd (1998) 194 CLR 1.