45.
Subsequent decisions
A comparison between several decisions given after the Tasmanian Dam Case was drawn by Gaudron and Gummow JJ in a passage in Smith v ANL Ltd[1]. On the one hand, their Honours noted:
"The legislation which was invalid in its application to the plaintiff in Georgiadis [v Australian and Overseas Telecommunications Corporation[2]] denied his right to recover damages for non-economic loss and deprived him of his entitlement to full recovery of economic loss[3], [even though it] did not extinguish the whole of the rights comprising his common law cause of action. The law which was successfully challenged in Newcrest Mining (WA) Ltd v The Commonwealth[4] did not in terms extinguish Newcrest's mining tenements and the Kakadu National Park extended only 1,000 m beneath the surface. Nevertheless there was an effective sterilisation of the rights constituting the property in question, the mining tenements. On the surface and to the depth of 1,000 m, s 10(1A) of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Act 1987 (Cth) forbade the carrying out of operations for the recovery of minerals. As a legal and practical matter, the vesting in the Commonwealth of the minerals to that depth and the vesting of the surface and the balance of the relevant segments of the subterranean land in the Director of National Parks and Wildlife denied to Newcrest the exercise of its rights under the mining tenements."
The passage in ANL continued:
"On the other hand, the degree of impairment of the bundle of rights constituting the property in question may be insufficient to attract the operation of s 51(xxxi). For example, the prohibition imposed under the legislation upheld in Waterhouse v Minister for the Arts and Territories[5] upon the export of the applicant's painting left him free to retain, enjoy, display or otherwise make use of the painting. He was free to sell, mortgage or otherwise turn the painting to his advantage, subject to
