District Council of Streaky Bay v Wilson

The appeal in District Council of Streaky Bay v Wilson concerns a dispute over the extinguishment of native title in certain parcels of land. The respondents, including the Wirangu people and the State, argued that the appellant council's construction of public works on the land extinguished their native title rights. Alternatively, the respondents argued that the council's lease to the golf club constituted a previous exclusive possession act that extinguished native title. The appeal focused on whether the court could receive fresh evidence and whether the council had exercised reasonable diligence in presenting its case. The central issue was whether the proposed grounds of appeal, which were not raised at trial, were sufficiently meritorious to warrant leave to appeal.

The court examined the circumstances under which the new grounds were raised and found that the appellant council had not exercised reasonable diligence in presenting its case. The court noted that the proposed grounds of appeal were not plainly lacking merit, but the timing and manner in which they were raised demonstrated a lack of diligence. The court further found that the proposed grounds were not sufficiently meritorious to warrant leave to appeal, as the council had ample opportunity to raise these arguments during the appeal process. The court concluded that the council's failure to raise these grounds at trial, despite their relevance, could not be excused by inadvertence. The council's position had already been fully developed and considered, and the other parties were entitled to finality.

The court granted leave to amend the application for leave to appeal, allowed the interlocutory application for leave to adduce further evidence, and granted leave to appeal in the terms of the draft notice of appeal. However, the court refused the interlocutory application to adduce fresh evidence on the appeal and the application to further amend the draft notice of appeal. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the costs of the respondents.