Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: DARUK LOCAL ABORIGINAL LAND COUNCIL v THE MINISTER ADMINISTERING THE CROWN LANDS ACT [1992] NSWCA 54 Decision date: 19 October 1992
See Attachment (PDF)
Continue reading Daruk Local Aboriginal Land Council v The Minister Administe...
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Daruk Local Aboriginal Land Council v The Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act [1992] NSWCA 54
- Case
- [1992] NSWCA 54
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Daruk Local Aboriginal Land Council (the Council) sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister administering the Crown Lands Act (the Minister) to grant a lease over certain land to a private developer. The Council contended that the Minister's decision was invalid because it failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the *Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983* (NSW) (the ALR Act). The matter came before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Minister's decision to grant the lease was vitiated by a failure to consult with the Council as required by section 36(1) of the ALR Act. This section mandates that the Minister must not grant an estate or interest in Crown land to a person other than an Aboriginal person or a community-controlled Aboriginal organisation unless the Minister has first consulted with the relevant Aboriginal Land Council. The Court was asked to determine if the consultation undertaken by the Minister was sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement.
The Court of Appeal found that the Minister's consultation with the Council was inadequate. It held that section 36(1) of the ALR Act imposed a positive obligation on the Minister to engage in a meaningful consultation process with the Council before granting the lease. The Court determined that the Minister had merely notified the Council of the proposed grant without affording the Council a genuine opportunity to express its views or to have those views considered. This failure to consult constituted a jurisdictional error, rendering the Minister's decision to grant the lease invalid.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the Council's appeal and ordered that the Minister's decision to grant the lease be quashed.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Minister's decision to grant the lease was vitiated by a failure to consult with the Council as required by section 36(1) of the ALR Act. This section mandates that the Minister must not grant an estate or interest in Crown land to a person other than an Aboriginal person or a community-controlled Aboriginal organisation unless the Minister has first consulted with the relevant Aboriginal Land Council. The Court was asked to determine if the consultation undertaken by the Minister was sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement.
The Court of Appeal found that the Minister's consultation with the Council was inadequate. It held that section 36(1) of the ALR Act imposed a positive obligation on the Minister to engage in a meaningful consultation process with the Council before granting the lease. The Court determined that the Minister had merely notified the Council of the proposed grant without affording the Council a genuine opportunity to express its views or to have those views considered. This failure to consult constituted a jurisdictional error, rendering the Minister's decision to grant the lease invalid.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the Council's appeal and ordered that the Minister's decision to grant the lease be quashed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.