In brief
Meridian Energy Australia Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue1
The case sheds light on how the source of a property right is relevant to the meaning of "land" or "interest in land" in the context of the Duties Act.
Namely, the case considers how the "correct approach" is not to assume that property interests created by statute (and the consequences of this right on the transferee and transferor) will have similar outcomes as the common law.2
In particular, the case contemplates how a statutory instrument may cause something to lose its character as "land" and become something unnamed and in a "class of its own" (i.e., sui generis).
"Property interests owing their existence to statute should be characterised in light of the relevant statutory provisions, without attaching undue significance to similarities in a common law analogue."3
This was the guiding principle applied by the Supreme Court of NSW in relation to how property rights conferred by statute should be interpreted within the meaning of "land" and "land holdings" in the Duties Act 1997 (NSW) ("Duties Act").4
The case sheds light on how the source of a property right is relevant to the meaning of "land" or "interest in land" in the context of the Duties Act. Namely, the case considers how the "correct approach" is not to assume that property interests created by statute (and the consequences of this right on the transferee and transferor) will have similar outcomes as the common law.5
In particular, the case contemplates how a statutory instrument may cause something to lose its character as "land" and become something unnamed and in a "class of its own" (i.e., sui generis).
In this context, the Court cautions against the "fallacy of assimilating" the exercise of a statutory right (here, a sui generis interest) to categories of interest in land known to the common law.6 This would be something like fitting a square peg into a round hole. A property right conferred by statute is answerable solely by reference to the provisions of that statute - its source, and not general law principles.
It is noted that:
- Although the current definition of "land holdings" under the Duties Act adopts a "fixed to land" model (i.e., physically affixed assets, irrespective of whether the asset is a fixture at law, can be caught under the provisions), these provisions were not in force at the time of the relevant acquisition in this case. However, this case provides additional guidance on what constitutes an interest in land.
- At the time of publication of this article, the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue filed a Notice of Appeal in the NSW Court of Appeal.
Click here to access the full alert.
