Commonwealth of Australia v Alan Griffiths and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples

This matter concerned applications for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The parties involved were the Commonwealth of Australia, Alan Griffiths and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples (the native title party), the Northern Territory of Australia, and intervening parties including the States of Western Australia and Queensland. The core dispute revolved around the assessment of compensation payable for the extinguishment of native title rights and interests.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the principles for assessing compensation for the extinguishment of native title were of general importance warranting special leave to appeal. Specifically, the Court was required to consider the application and interpretation of sections 51A and 53 of the *Native Title Act 1993* (Cth), which impose limits on compensation and provide for additional amounts if those limits do not result in just terms. The Court also had to consider whether certain aspects of the native title party's grounds of appeal, relating to the valuation of native title rights and the claim for compound interest, had sufficient prospects of success to justify granting leave.

The High Court indicated a tentative inclination to grant special leave, recognising the importance of the principles involved. However, the State of Western Australia argued against granting leave, contending that concessions made by the Northern Territory and agreements between the parties meant that sections 51A and 53 of the *Native Title Act* were not properly considered by the courts below. Western Australia argued that these concessions created difficulties for a meaningful appeal to the High Court, as the necessary factual and legal assessments regarding the operation of these sections had not been undertaken. The Northern Territory also opposed certain grounds of appeal, arguing they lacked sufficient prospects of success, particularly concerning the valuation of native title rights as equivalent to freehold and the claim for compound interest.

The High Court ultimately granted special leave to appeal, finding that the matter raised questions of principle of general importance that warranted consideration by the Court. The Court's decision to grant leave was influenced by the complex interplay of statutory provisions, concessions made by parties, and the fundamental nature of assessing compensation for the extinguishment of native title.