From: Neil Foster
<neil.foster@newcastle.edu.au>
Sent: Friday 29 May 2020 03:41
To: obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: HCA comments on goods torts and property
issues- Hocking
Dear Colleagues;
The decision today in Hocking v Director-General of the National
Archives of Australia [2020] HCA 19 (29 May 2020) http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2020/19.html
is a big deal politically in Australia, holding (by 6-1, Nettle J dissenting)
that letters between Sir John Kerr and the Queen relating to the dismissal of
the Whitlam government in 1975 are
“Commonwealth records” within the meaning of the Archives Act
1983 (Cth) and hence are subject to the disclosure regime under that
legislation. But it incidentally also has some passing comments on torts issues
relating to chattels and the nature of the concept of “property”.
While there is a tantalising passing reference to detinue in the
judgement of the “plurality” (KIEFEL CJ, BELL, GAGELER AND KEANE JJ) at [102]
(with the interesting possible implication that perhaps Sir John Kerr’s estate
would now be able to sue to recover the documents), the main discussion is
found in the fascinating examination of the area by EDELMAN J from [201] under
the sub-heading “The common law meaning of property in relation to chattels”.
It ranges over a wide range of controversial issues, commenting on “numerus
clausus” arguments about the different types of property rights (an article by
Swadling), and digging into the arguments about “bundle of rights” with
reference to Honore, Penner and Smith among others. The “right to exclude”,
factual possession and intention to possess, possession as an agent, who owns
written letters, the application of Justinian’s Institutes (from [235])
all get a look in.
By the way, the decision does not mean (as some press headlines seem to
be suggesting) that Professor Hocking will now get full access. It simply means
that she can apply under the Act and the Archivist will then have to decide
whether various exemptions under the Act apply, including questions of
“confidentiality”. So there may be more private law issues ahead around the
grounds for an equitable “breach of confidence” action!
Regards
Neil
NEIL FOSTER
Associate Professor,
Newcastle Law School
Faculty of Business and Law
409 Hunter St
Newcastle
T: +61 2 49217430
E: neil.foster@newcastle.edu.au
Further details: http://www.newcastle.edu.au/profile/neil-foster
My publications: http://works.bepress.com/neil_foster/
, http://ssrn.com/author=504828
Blog: https://lawandreligionaustralia.blog
The University of Newcastle
(UoN)
University Drive
Callaghan NSW 2308
Australia
CRICOS Provider 00109J