Nominalisation in the High Court of Australia

Today, we’re exploring the High Court of Australia’s decision in ***Palmanova Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia \[2025] HCA 35*** — a case about cultural property, international obligations, and statutory construction. But our special focus is not the doctrine, not even the archaeology, but the *grammar* — specifically, the use of **nominalisation**.

Time Stamps

00:00 - Introduction
02:45 - What is the legal issue ?
03:30 - Part Two: Spotting Nominalisation
06:02 - Part Three Why Nominalism Matters
06:54 - Part Four: More Examples
08:14 - Part Five: The Pattern
09:14 - Part Six: Why do lawyers do this ?
10:18 - Part Seven: Lessons for Clearer Legal...
11:02 - Conclusion

Nominalisation happens when verbs like *decide*, *forfeit*, or *export* are turned into nouns like *decision*, *forfeiture*, or *exportation*. This technique, common in legal writing, can obscure *who is responsible for the action*.

Palmanova Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (2025)
Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986 (Cth)