Clodumar v Nauru Lands Committee

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of Nauru concerning the validity of a land transfer. The appellant, Mr Clodumar, claimed that certain lands had been transferred to him in 1999 by Mr Rick Burenbeiya. However, the Nauru Lands Committee had subsequently determined that Mr Burenbeiya's widow was a beneficiary of his estate in relation to those lands, and a distribution was made accordingly. The Supreme Court of Nauru had previously held that the transfer to the appellant was invalid because it lacked the necessary written approval from the President of Nauru, as required by section 3 of the Lands Act 1976 (Nauru).

The legal issues before the High Court were whether it could receive fresh evidence on an appeal from the Supreme Court of Nauru, whether an extension of time should be granted for the appeal, and whether the specific fresh evidence sought to be admitted – a document bearing the President's signature approving the transfer – should be received. The appellant sought to rely on a document discovered after the Supreme Court proceedings, which he contended constituted the required Presidential Approval.

The High Court reasoned that, by analogy with common law procedures, it had the power to receive fresh evidence on such an appeal, provided it met the criteria for new evidence. This included demonstrating that the evidence was not inherently improbable, was likely to be decisive, and could not have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the original hearing. The Court found that the discovered document, which was not disputed as to its authenticity, was cogent evidence. Furthermore, the circumstances surrounding its concealment by a government minister at the time meant that its existence could not have been discovered by the appellant through reasonable diligence prior to the Supreme Court proceedings.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, granted an extension of time, and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court of Nauru for a retrial. The Court ordered that the costs of the proceedings in the Supreme Court of Nauru would be at the discretion of that Court, while the first respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal to the High Court.