Palmanova Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia

The parties to this matter were Palmanova Pty Ltd (the appellant) and the Commonwealth of Australia (the respondent). The dispute concerned the recovery of an archaeological artefact imported into Australia, which had been seized by an inspector under the *Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986* (Cth) following a request for its return by the Government of Bolivia. Palmanova Pty Ltd sought to recover the artefact under s 37 of the Act. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether s 14(1) of the Act rendered liable to forfeiture a protected object of a foreign country that had been unlawfully exported from that country before the commencement of the Act. The appellant argued that the words "has been exported" in s 14(1)(a) should be interpreted to mean exported after the commencement of the Act, to avoid rendering those words redundant when read with other provisions of the Act.

The High Court, in dismissing the appeal, reasoned that the present perfect tense used in s 14(1)(a) and (2)(a) indicated that an object is liable to forfeiture if, at the time of its importation into Australia, it is a protected object of a foreign country and was previously exported from that country. This construction did not impose a temporal limitation on when the export must have occurred. The Court found that the text of s 14(1) and (2) did not involve surplusage or redundancy, as the phrase "has been exported" simply expressed the criterion that the object was previously exported from its country of origin, without further temporal restriction. The Court applied the modern approach to statutory interpretation, considering the ordinary meaning of the words, the syntax, and the statutory purpose, which included bringing Australia into conformity with its obligations under the UNESCO Convention.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.