Paphos Providores Pty Limited v Constable Aziz Ladha [2014] NSWSC 1788

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Paphos Providores Pty Limited v Constable Aziz Ladha [2014] NSWSC 1788 Hearing dates: 1 and 6 May 2014 Decision date: 17 December 2014 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Johnson J Decision: 1. Summons dismissed. 2. The Plaintiff is to pay the Defendant's costs of the proceedings. Catchwords: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - judicial power of Commonwealth - plaintiff's property seized by Commissioner of Australian Federal Police pursuant to search warrant - decision taken not to prosecute plaintiff for offences against Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), s.148 - Commissioner sought order for destruction of seized property under Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s.3ZQZB(3) and (4) - subsections permit magistrate in exercise of discretion to order destruction of property seized by Commissioner if satisfied there are reasonable grounds to suspect that property likely to be used in commission of serious offence if returned to person from whom seized - Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s.3CA purports to confer function on magistrate in personal capacity and not as court or member of a court - whether despite s.3CA function exclusively judicial in nature and legislation invalid - function not exclusively judicial

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - heads of Commonwealth legislative power - whether sufficient connection between exercise of function by magistrate and trade mark power under s.51(xviii) of the Constitution - sufficient connection found

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - acquisition of property - whether order for destruction of plaintiff's property constitutes an acquisition by the Commonwealth of property to be undertaken on just terms for the purpose of s.51(xxxi) of the Constitution - no acquisition of proprietary interest by the Commonwealth - in any event provision incongruous with notion of acquisition of property on just terms Legislation Cited: Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 2011 (Cth) Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Act (No. 2) 2010 (Cth) Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) Cases Cited: Attorney-General (Cth) v Alinta [2008] HCA 2; 233 CLR 542 Attorney-General (Cth) v Breckler [1999] HCA 28; 197 CLR 83 Attorney-General (NT) v Emmerson [2014] HCA 13; 88 ALJR 522 Boughey v The Queen [1986] HCA 29; 161 CLR 10 Brandy v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10; 183 CLR 245 Cheatley v The Queen [1972] HCA 63; 127 CLR 291 Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1992] HCA 64; 176 CLR 1 Commonwealth of Australia v Tasmania [1983] HCA 21; 158 CLR 1 Darkan v The Queen [2006] HCA 34; 227 CLR 373 George v Rockett [1990] HCA 26; 170 CLR 104 Grain Pool of Western Australia v Commonwealth of Australia [2000] HCA 14; 202 CLR 479 ICM Agriculture Pty Limited v Commonwealth of Australia [2009] HCA 51; 240 CLR 140 JT International SA v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] HCA 43; 250 CLR 1 Leask v Commonwealth of Australia [1996] HCA 29; 187 CLR 579 Love v Attorney-General (NSW) [1990] HCA 4; 169 CLR 307 Nintendo Co Limited v Centronics Systems Pty Limited [1994] HCA 27; 181 CLR 134 Olbers Co Limited v Commonwealth of Australia [2004] FCA 229; 136 FCR 67 Olbers Co Limited v Commonwealth of Australia [2004] FCAFC 262; 143 FCR 449 Precision Data Holdings Limited v Wills [1991] HCA 41; 173 CLR 167 Price v Fitzgerald [2000] FCA 134; 97 FCR 227 Re Director of Public Prosecutions; Ex parte Lawler [1994] HCA 10; 179 CLR 270 Re Woolley; Ex parte Applicants M276/2003 [2004] HCA 49; 225 CLR 1 R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia [1956] HCA 10; 94 CLR 254 R v Trade Practices Tribunal; Ex Parte Tasmanian Breweries Pty Limited [1970] HCA 8; 123 CLR 361 Theophanous v Commonwealth of Australia [2006] HCA 18; 225 CLR 101 Thomas v Mowbray [2007] HCA 33; 233 CLR 307 Tran v Commonwealth of Australia [2010] FCAFC 80; 187 FCR 54 Wainohu v State of New South Wales [2011] HCA 24; 243 CLR 181 Williams v Keelty [2001] FCA 1301; 184 ALR 411 Texts Cited: --- Category: Principal judgment Parties: Paphos Providores Pty Limited (Plaintiff) Constable Aziz Ladha (Defendant) Commonwealth Attorney-General (Intervener) Attorney-General for New South Wales (Intervener) Representation: Counsel: Mr DPM Ash (Plaintiff) Mr C Lenehan (Defendant and Attorney-General for New South Wales) Ms NL Sharp (Commonwealth Attorney-General) Solicitors: Joe Weller & Associates (Plaintiff) Australian Government Solicitor (Commonwealth Attorney-General) Crown Solicitor's Office (Defendant and Attorney-General for New South Wales) File Number(s): 2013/317587 Publication restriction: Nil