Barkandji Traditional Owners #8 (Part B) v Attorney-General of New South Wales
Case
•
[2017] FCA 971
•22 August 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Barkandji Traditional Owners #8 (Part B) v Attorney-General of New South Wales [2017] FCA 971
[2017] FCA 971
22 August 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Barkandji Traditional Owners #8 (Part B) v Attorney-General of New South Wales involved a dispute regarding the recognition and determination of native title rights and interests over certain lands. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, specifically before Justice Bromberg. The applicants, Barkandji Traditional Owners, sought a determination of their native title rights over a specified area following a previous determination that recognised their native title over a different area (Part A Determination). The respondents were the Attorney-General of New South Wales and other relevant parties.
The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the requirements of sections 87A and 94A of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) were satisfied to permit the making of a consent determination, and whether it was appropriate to make such orders. The Court had to consider the evidence presented, the process undertaken by the parties, and whether the consent determination was a fair and just resolution of the dispute.
Justice Bromberg concluded that the consent determination was appropriate, noting the extensive process of negotiation and compromise between the parties, the credible basis for the native title claim, and the alignment with the objectives of the Native Title Act. The Court was satisfied that the determination reflected a fair resolution of the native title rights and interests in the area, taking into account the historical context, the cultural significance of the land, and the mutual compromises made by the parties.
The Court made a determination of native title in the terms agreed upon by the parties, which included exclusive rights over certain areas and non-exclusive rights over others, including rights to access, use natural resources, conduct cultural activities, and maintain sites of significance. The determination was to take effect upon the registration of the relevant Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs). If the ILUAs were not registered by a specified date, the matter was to be listed for further directions. The Barkandji Native Title Group Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC was appointed as the prescribed body corporate to hold the determined native title in trust for the common law holders. No orders were made as to costs.
The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the requirements of sections 87A and 94A of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) were satisfied to permit the making of a consent determination, and whether it was appropriate to make such orders. The Court had to consider the evidence presented, the process undertaken by the parties, and whether the consent determination was a fair and just resolution of the dispute.
Justice Bromberg concluded that the consent determination was appropriate, noting the extensive process of negotiation and compromise between the parties, the credible basis for the native title claim, and the alignment with the objectives of the Native Title Act. The Court was satisfied that the determination reflected a fair resolution of the native title rights and interests in the area, taking into account the historical context, the cultural significance of the land, and the mutual compromises made by the parties.
The Court made a determination of native title in the terms agreed upon by the parties, which included exclusive rights over certain areas and non-exclusive rights over others, including rights to access, use natural resources, conduct cultural activities, and maintain sites of significance. The determination was to take effect upon the registration of the relevant Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs). If the ILUAs were not registered by a specified date, the matter was to be listed for further directions. The Barkandji Native Title Group Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC was appointed as the prescribed body corporate to hold the determined native title in trust for the common law holders. No orders were made as to costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Indigenous Peoples & Native Title Law
Legal Concepts
-
Native Title
-
Adverse Possession
-
Recognised Rights
-
Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Barkandji Traditional Owners #8 (Part B) v Attorney-General of New South Wales [2017] FCA 971
Most Recent Citation
Ohlsen on behalf of the Ngemba, Ngiyampaa, Wangaaypuwan and Wayilwan People v Attorney General of New South Wales (No 2) [2024] FCA 937
Cases Citing This Decision
10
McLennan on behalf of the Jangga People #3 v State of Queensland
[2023] FCAFC 191
Wayilwan People v Attorney General of New South Wales
[2024] FCA 900