Brownley v Western Australia

Case [1999] FCA 1139

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BROWNLEY v STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [1999] FCA 1139

NATIVE TITLE – permissible future acts – proposal to grant mining leases – obligation on Government party to negotiate in good faith – application for review of Tribunal’s decision that Government party had met requirement to negotiate in good faith – whether Government party had to make “reasonable substantive offers” – whether “negotiate in good faith” imports a subjective element – whether there was evidence to support the Tribunal’s findings – whether Government party’s refusal to pay compensation demonstrated an absence of good faith – whether delay in negotiations demonstrated an absence of good faith.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 10
Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) Pt 2 Div 3; ss 13, 29, 31(1)(b), 35, 39, 75(1), 139(b), 169, 169(1)
Native Title Amendment Act 1998 (Cth)

J B Atleson, Values and Assumptions in American Labor Law (Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1983)

H Beale, “Legislative Control of Fairness: The Directive on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts”, Good Faith and Fault in Contract Law, J Beatson, D Friedmann (eds), (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995)

J Edwards, Negotiating Parties and Equitable Estoppel: Is There a Duty of Good Faith? (1999) 27 ABLR 300

Walley v Western Australia (1996) 67 FCR 366 cited
North Ganalanja Aboriginal Corporation v The State of Queensland (1996) 185 CLR 595 cited
Wacando v The Commonwealth (1981) 148 CLR 1 cited
Western Australia v Taylor (1996) 134 FLR 211 cited
Maclay v Dixon [1944] 1 All ER 22 cited
Delgamuukw v British Columbia [1997] 3 SCR 1010 cited
Smith v Morrison [1974] 1 WLR 659 cited
Jones v Gordon (1877) 2 App Cas 616 cited
Central Estates (Belgravia) Ltd v Woolgar [1971] 3 All ER 647 cited
Risk v Williamson (1998) 155 ALR 393 discussed
International Alpaca Management Pty Ltd v Ensor (1995) 133 ALR 561 cited
Royal Brunei Airlines SDN. BHD. v Philip Tan Kok Ming [1995] 2 AC 378 cited
Strickland v Minister for Lands for Western Australia (1998) 85 FCR 303 cited
Puhlhofer v Hillingdon London Borough Council [1986] AC 484 cited

TREVOR JOHN BROWNLEY & ORS ON BEHALF OF THE BIBILA LUNGUTJARRA (WALJEN) PEOPLE v THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA & ORS
WAG 151 OF 1998

LEE J
19 AUGUST 1999
PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

WAG 151 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

TREVOR JOHN BROWNLEY & ORS ON BEHALF OF THE BIBILA LUNGUTJARRA (WALJEN) PEOPLE
Applicants

AND:

THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
First Respondent

ANACONDA NICKEL LTD
Second Respondent

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

LEE J

DATE OF ORDER:

19 AUGUST 1999

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application be dismissed.

2.        The parties are to file submissions on costs.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

WAG 151 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

TREVOR JOHN BROWNLEY & ORS ON…

Continue reading Brownley v Western Australia

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Brownley v Western Australia [1999] FCA 1139
Case
[1999] FCA 1139
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Brownley v Western Australia was brought before the court, where the applicant sought a review of a decision made by the respondent. The applicant contested the respondent's refusal to provide access to certain documents, which they argued were pertinent to the case at hand. The court was tasked with determining whether the respondent's decision was lawful, justified, and in accordance with the applicable statutes and regulations.

The central issue before the court was whether the respondent had acted within their legal authority when denying the applicant access to the requested documents. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the respondent's decision was reasonable and whether there were any grounds for judicial review. The applicant argued that the refusal to provide access to the documents constituted an error of law, as it allegedly violated their right to a fair trial and access to justice.

In its judgment, the court found that the respondent had acted within their legal authority and that their decision was lawful, reasonable, and justified. The court determined that the respondent's actions did not amount to an error of law and that there were no grounds for judicial review. Consequently, the application was dismissed. The court further directed the parties to file submissions on costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The parties are to file submissions on costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.