The appellant challenged two state laws alleging that the legislation, which prohibited the clearing of native vegetation on his property, were an unjust acquisition of his property interests, including interests in carbon sequestration. The Federal Court of Australia summarily dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had no reasonable prospect of success because the laws did not effect or authorize the acquisition of the appellant’s property. On appeal, the Full Court upheld the dismissal.
The appellant appealed again to the High Court of Australia. The High Court found that the proceeding should not have been dismissed because the possibility remained that the laws are invalid due to the informal arrangement between the State and the Commonwealth.
|09/01/2010||Decision||Download||No summary available.|