You are not logged in.

A tale of two expropriations: Newcrestia and Agrizania

Badenhorst,PJ 2014, A tale of two expropriations: Newcrestia and Agrizania, De Jure, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 258-282.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title A tale of two expropriations: Newcrestia and Agrizania
Author(s) Badenhorst,PJORCID iD for Badenhorst,PJ orcid.org/0000-0001-6012-6316
Journal name De Jure
Volume number 47
Issue number 2
Start page 258
End page 282
Total pages 25
Publisher Pretoria University Law Press
Place of publication Pretoria, South Africa
Publication date 2014
ISSN 1466-3597
1809-8487
Summary A comparison will be made between the decision of the High Court of Australia in Newcrest Mining (WA) Ltd v The Commonwealth1 (“Newcrest”) and the decisions of the South African Courts in the Agri South Africa line of cases.2 Although the mineral law systems of the two countries differ insofar as historical development and content,3 the simplified facts of the Newcrest and Agri SA decisions and principles of expropriation law are similar enough to draw an interesting comparison between the respective cases. Both cases dealt with the issue of whether the mineral rights/mining rights of private holders were expropriated by legislation which prohibited mining in one way or another. A comparison between the cases shows the approaches towards the issues and what exactly constitutes deprivation and/or acquisition of property for purposes of expropriation and whether deprivation and/or acquisition actually took place.The differences between the mineral law systems of Australia and South Africa (before the enactment of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 (hereafter “MPRDA”)) and the protection afforded against the resumption/expropriation of mineral rights or mining rights will be set as background information for a better understanding of the respective decisions. The facts of the two cases will first be set out and simplified for comparative purposes before the respective decisions are discussed. At the end, a comparison will be made between the decisions and a conclusion reached about the similarity of principles and the correctness of the respective decisions.
Language eng
Field of Research 180124 Property Law (excl Intellectual Property Law)
Socio Economic Objective 940401 Civil Justice
HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
ERA Research output type C Journal article
Copyright notice ©2014, Pretoria University Law Press
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30070613

Document type: Journal Article
Collection: Law
Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 0 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 133 Abstract Views, 55 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Thu, 12 Mar 2015, 12:47:15 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.