Nelungaloo Pty Ltd v Commonwealth [1952] HCA 11

pe ee 'taal Gon ucensland ee 2.QdR

© a Q a (HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.] NELUNGALOO PROPRIETARY LIMITED . APPLICANT ; Piatntirr-APPELLANT, AND THE COMMONWEALTH AND OTHERS . Responpents.

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS,

Constitutional Law (Cth.)—Privy Council—Appeal from High Court—Question as H. C. or A.

to limits inter se of constitutional powers of Commonwealth and States—Wheat— 1951-1952. Compulsory acquisition by Commonwealth—Compensation to growers—Just mae terms—Validity of regulations—Certificate of High Court—The Constitution era 63 & 64 Vict. ¢. 12), s. 74. eae (( Vict. c. ), 8. 74. July 26, 27,

(1) A question as to the limits inter se of the constitutional powers of the 30, 31; Commonwealth and of the States exists when the interpretation ofa paramount Aug. 1, 2.

Mernourye, interpretation advancing or retracting the Commonwealth power as the 1959,

concurrent legislative power of the Commonwealth is involved so that an

case may be means a corresponding retraction or advancement of the absolute March 14.

legislative power of the State, that is the State power absolute in the sense > — ixon,

that its exercise cannot be defeated under s. 109 of the Constitution by the Meviernan, " 2 é Will Ve operation of inconsistent Commonwealth laws. Webb,

a thas _ __ Fullagar and (2) A question as to such limits inter se also exists when the interpretation Kitto JJ.

of a legislative power of the Commonwealth exclusive over its whole area is involved so that an interpretation advancing or retracting the Common- wealth power means a corresponding retraction or advancement of the power of the State which otherwise is not excluded.

(3) The requirement of just terms imposed by s. 51 (xxxi.) of the Consti- tution forms part cf the definition of the power of acquisition conferred by that paragraph so that a question of what amounts to just terms is a question