A tale of two expropriations : Newcrestia and Agrizania

• Author: Pieter Badenhorst
• DOI: 10.10520/EJC166191
• Published date: 01 January 2014
• Date: 01 January 2014
• Pages: 258-282

258

A tale of two expropriations:

Newcrestia

and

Agrizania

Pieter Badenhorst

BLC LLM LLD

Associate Professor of Law, Deakin University, Visiting Professor, Nelson Mandela

Metropolitan University

“(I)t was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness …”

(Charles Dickens)

OPSOMMING

’n Verhaaltjie Omtrent Twee Onteienings:

Newcrestia

en

Agrizania

’n Regsvergelyking word getref tussen die destydse belangwekkende

uitspraak van High Court van Australië in Newcrest Mining (WA) Ltd v The

Commonwealth en die onlangse Agri SA reeks van sake teen die

Departement van Minerale in Suid-Afrika. Beide die geskille het gehandel

oor die vraag of die mineraalregte/mynregte deur wetgewing, wat die

bedryf van mynbou of vervreemding van regte op een of ander wyse

verbied he t, onteie n word. Die ar tikel fokus o p die bete kenis wat aa n die

begrippe “ontneming” en “verkryging”, as synde elemente van ont-

eiening, toegedig word. Ondanks soortgelyke feitestelle en regsbeginsels

rondom onteiening word verskillende resultate in die beslissings bereik.

Daar word gepoog om die verskillende resultate te verklaar. By afloop van

’n regsvergelykende analise word tot ’n slotsom geraak omtrent die

juistheid en wysheid van die onderskeie beslissings.

1Introduction

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

1 (1997) 190 CLR 513.

2Agri South Africa v Minister of Minerals and Energy; Van Rooyen v Minister of

Minerals and Energy 2010 1 SA 104 (GNP) (hereafter “Agr i SA I”); Agri South

Africa v Minister of Minerals and Energy 2012 1 SA 171. (GNP) (hereafter

“Agri SA II”); Minister of Minerals and Energy v Agri SA 2012 5 SA 1 (SCA)

(hereafter “Agri SA I II”); Agri SA v Minister of Minerals and Energy 2013 4 SA

1 (CC) (hereafter “Agri SA I V”).

3 See, Badenhorst “Ownership of minerals in situ in South Africa: Australian

darning to the rescue?” 2010 SALJ 646 .

A tale of two expropriations: Newcrestia and Agrizania 259

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.

2 Differences Between the Two Legal Systems

The mineral law systems and the protection afforded against

expropriation/resumption of mineral rights/mining rights in the two

systems differ and will be explained below.

2 1 Australia

The English doctrine of tenure applies to Australian law.4 This doctrine

is based on the principle that all land is owned by the Crown, whilst the

land is occupied by tenants holding it directly or indirectly of the Crown

by virtue of an estate in land.5 By virtue of the maxim cuius est solum eius

est usque ad coelum et ad inferos,6 all mines7 and minerals that lie beneath

the soil are presumed to belong to the owner of an estate in fee simple.8

This principle is, however, subject to qualifications. First, all mines of

gold and silver, on private or public land, belong to the Crown by royal

4Attorney-General NSW v Brown (1847) 2 Legge 312; Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty

Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141; Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 (CLR) 1 47;

Bradbrook, MacCallum, Moore and Grattan (2011) 41.

5 See Harpum, Bridge & Dixon The Law of Real Property (2012) 22; Butt Land

Law (2010) 83.

6 As to the origin of the cuius est solum maxim in English law, see Gray and

Gray Elements of Land law (2009) par 2.16; Griggs “Cujus est solum – an

unfortunate scrap of Latin, doctrine in disarray or a brocard of relevance?

Its applicability to the subterranean and the United Kingdom Supreme

Court decision in Star Energy v Bocardo” (19) 2011 Australian Property Law

Journal 155 156.

7 The word “mine” is used in English law either as a synonym for a vein, lode

or ore (body of material) or the location where the mineral is recovered

(Cadia Holdings (Pty) Ltd v New South Wales [2008] NSWC 528 par 21). At

present it is used as body or material.

8Commonwealth of Australia v New South Wales (1923) 33 CLR 1 22 23 38;

Forbes and Lang Australian Mining and Petroleum Laws (1987) 14.