Attorney-General (NT) v Chaffey

The Attorney-General for the Northern Territory and Santos Ltd appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The dispute concerned amendments made to the Work Health Act (NT) in 2004, which excluded employers' superannuation contributions from the definition of a worker's "remuneration." The respondent, Mr Chaffey, a worker injured in 2003, argued that this amendment constituted an acquisition of his property otherwise than on just terms, contrary to section 50 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 (Cth).

The High Court was required to determine whether the amendment to section 49 of the Work Health Act amounted to an acquisition of property otherwise than on just terms, as prohibited by section 50 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. This involved considering whether the statutory right to compensation, as it stood at the time of Mr Chaffey's injury, was "property" in the constitutional sense, and whether the subsequent legislative amendment constituted an "acquisition" of that property. The Court also had to consider the relevance of the statutory right being subject to variation and the inherent variability of workers' compensation entitlements.

The Court reasoned that Mr Chaffey's rights to compensation under the Work Health Act, as it stood at the time of his injury, were of a nature that rendered them liable to variation by subsequent legislative provisions. The Court concluded that the amendment did not constitute an "acquisition" of property within the meaning of section 50 of the Self-Government Act. This was because the statutory entitlement was inherently variable, and the amendment merely adjusted or regulated competing claims within the workers' compensation scheme, rather than acquiring property on terms that were not just.

The appeals were allowed, and the order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory was set aside. The High Court ordered that the questions posed in the special case be answered in the negative, meaning that the amendment was not considered an acquisition of the worker's property inconsistent with section 50 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. The appellants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeals.