FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Dariwul People v Minister for Land & Water Conservation for the
State of New South Wales [2000] FCA 905DARIWUL PEOPLE – GORDON MITCHELL WELLINGTON v MINISTER FOR LAND & WATER CONSERVATION FOR THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
NG 6101 of 1998
GYLES J
SYDNEY
23 JUNE 2000
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NG 6101 OF 1998
BETWEEN:
DARIWUL PEOPLE - GORDON MITCHELL WELLINGTON
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FOR THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
GYLES J
DATE OF ORDER:
23 JUNE 2000
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The proceedings are dismissed in accordance with O 20 r 2 of the Federal Court Rules.
2. No order as to costs.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NG 6101 OF 1998
BETWEEN:
DARIWUL PEOPLE - GORDON MITCHELL WELLINGTON
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FOR THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
GYLES J
DATE:
23 JUNE 2000
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In the previous matter (NG6025 of 1998) I gave short reasons why it seemed to me to be appropriate to exercise the power to summarily dismiss that claim. I repeat what I said there. As the transcript here will record, there are defects in the application itself which may well have been in any event incurable, which underline the desirability of clearing the slate, as it were to enable the concentration by this claimant group upon submitting a claim which accords with the statute which can then be progressed expeditiously once prepared and propounded.
So, under the circumstances, I dismiss the proceedings. I make no order as to costs. The dismissal is under O 20 r 2, and it not being a dismissal on the merits, it will not be a barrier to any further application. It is on that footing that I accede to the application.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gyles. Associate:
Dated: 3 July 2000
Counsel for the Applicant: A McLean Counsel for the First Respondent: Crown Solicitor
Counsel for the Second Respondent: SB Philips
Counsel for the Third Respondent: S Pritchard
Date of Hearing: 23 June 2000 Date of Judgment: 23 June 2000
- AGLC
- Dariwul People v Minister for Land and Water Conservation for the [2000] FCA 905
- Case
- [2000] FCA 905
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the plaintiffs' claim was invalid because it was not brought in accordance with the Native Title Act. The court held that the plaintiffs were required to follow the procedures set out in the Act in order to bring a valid claim for traditional ownership of land. The court further held that the Minister was not required to pay compensation because the plaintiffs' claim was invalid. The court dismissed the proceedings in accordance with rule 20 of the Federal Court Rules.
The court's decision was based on a strict interpretation of the Native Title Act. The court held that the plaintiffs were required to follow the procedures set out in the Act in order to bring a valid claim for traditional ownership of land. The court found that the plaintiffs had not followed these procedures and, as a result, their claim was invalid. The court further held that the Minister was not required to pay compensation because the plaintiffs' claim was invalid. The court dismissed the proceedings and made no order as to costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The proceedings are dismissed in accordance with O 20 r 2 of the Federal Court Rules.
2. No order as to 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
Established by: GYLES J
Full text does not contain this section.