Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd (No 2)

Chapman, the plaintiff, brought proceedings against Luminis Pty Ltd, the defendant, in the Federal Court of Australia, regarding the defendant's proposed development of a quarry on land in the vicinity of Ngarrindjeri land. The case involved the protection of Aboriginal heritage and the application of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1983 (SA) and the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) in relation to restricted women's knowledge. The plaintiff sought a declaration that certain provisions of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1983 (SA) did not apply to witnesses giving evidence in the trial and sought to exclude information about restricted women's knowledge from the evidence.

The court was required to decide whether section 35 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1983 (SA) applied to witnesses whilst giving evidence, whether section 130 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) should exclude information about restricted women's knowledge, and whether the evidence about the restricted women's knowledge should be adduced in camera. The court also had to consider the implications of section 17(4) and 50 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) in relation to the adduction of evidence.

The court found that section 35 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1983 (SA) did not apply to witnesses giving evidence in the trial. The court held that the section was not intended to apply to the giving of evidence in court proceedings and that it would be inappropriate to apply it in that context. The court also found that section 130 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) should not exclude information about restricted women's knowledge from the evidence. The court held that the interests of justice required that the evidence be adduced and that the protection of the knowledge was not sufficient to outweigh the public interest in the fair administration of justice. The court directed that the evidence be adduced in camera in the presence of one female legal practitioner representing each group of parties in the proceedings and that the evidence received not be disseminated without further order of the court.

The court made a declaration that section 35 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1983 (SA) did not apply to witnesses whilst giving evidence in the trial of this action. The court also directed that evidence about restricted women's knowledge be adduced in camera and that the evidence received not be disseminated without further order of the court. The court did not exclude information about restricted women's knowledge from the evidence and held that the interests of justice required that the evidence be adduced.