1887

oa De Jure - A tale of two expropriations : and

 

Abstract

A comparison will be made between the decision of the High Court of Australia in ("Newcrest") and the decisions of the South African Courts in the line of cases. Although the mineral law systems of the two countries differ insofar as historical development and content, the simplified facts of the and 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.


'n Regsvergelyking word getref tussen die destydse belangwekkende uitspraak van van Australiƫ in en die onlangse 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 het, onteien word. Die artikel fokus op die betekenis wat aan die begrippe "ontneming" en "verkryging", as synde elemente van onteiening, 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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/dejure/47/2/EJC166191
2014-01-01
2016-12-04
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error