FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Doolan v Native Title Registrar [2007] FCA 192
NATIVE TITLE – application – applicant - registration of application – authorisation of a number of persons to act as an applicant - whether Native Title Registrar correct in deciding not to accept amended application for registration - effect of resolutions passed at authorisation meeting – withdrawal of members of the applicant after authorisation meeting but before registration of claim – whether further authorisation meeting required - proper interpretation of ‘the applicant’ in s 61(2) – application of the merits test in s 190B
RELIEF - appropriate relief – registration of rights on Native Title Registrar under s 186(1)(g) – whether appropriate for Native Title Registrar to revoke decision
COSTS – whether appropriate for Court to exercise its discretion to make an order for costs– whether actions of Registrar unreasonable in the circumstances - whether Registrar unreasonably maintained his position
Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ss 61, 62, 66B, 85A, 186, 190, 190A, 190B, 190C, 253
FederalCourt of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
Federal Court Rules, O 4 r 2(1), O 6, O 13 r 13Native Title Federal Court Regulation 1998
Western Australia v Strickland (2000) 99 FCR 33
Northern Territory of Australia v Doepel and Others (2003) 133 FCR 112
Wakaman People # 2 v Native Title Registrar and Authorised Delegate [2006] FCA 1198
Butchulla People v Queensland and Others (2006) 154 FCR 233
Commonwealth v Yarmirr (2001) 208 CLR 1
Central West Goldfields People v State of Western Australia [2003] FCA 467
Button v Chapman on behalf of the Wakka Wakka People [2003] FCA 861
Walker on behalf of the Yaegl, Bundjalung and Gumbaynggirr People v Minister for Land & Water Conservation (NSW) [2003] FCA 947
‘Pooncarie’ Barkandji (Paakantyi) People v New South Wales Minister for Land and Water Conservation [2006] FCA 25
De Rose v State of South Australia (No 2) [2005] FCAFC 137
Ward v State of Western Australia (1999) 93 FCR 305
Wakaman People #2 v Native Title Registrar and Authorised Delegate [2006] FCA 1198KATE DOOLAN, SHAUN DOOLAN, EDWARD DOOLAN, DONALD BLACKMAN, BARRY BLACKMAN (JNR), PETER MARTIN, JAN WILLIAMS, ANNETTE BROOME, DAVINA MUNRO, LES MUCKAN, BEVERLEY SHOOTER, MACKENZIE MUCKAN, CEPHA ROMA, RUTH ROMA, LILLIAN BURKE AS APPLICANT ON HER OWN BEHALF AND FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE BUTCHULLA LAND AND SEA CLAIM AND GLADYS SAILOR AS APPLICANT ON HER OWN BEHALF AND FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE BUTCHULLA LAND AND SEA CLAIM v NATIVE TITLE REGISTRAR, STATE OF QUEENSLAND AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
QUD 227 OF 2006
SPENDER J
23 FEBRUARY 2007
SYDNEY (HEARD IN BRISBANE)
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
QUD 227 OF 2006
BETWEEN:
KATE DOOLAN
First ApplicantSHAUN DOOLAN
Second ApplicantEDWARD DOOLAN
Third ApplicantDONALD BLACKMAN
Fourth ApplicantBARRY BLACKMAN (JNR)
Fifth ApplicantPETER MARTIN
Sixth ApplicantJAN WILLIAMS
Seventh ApplicantANNETTE BROOME
Eighth ApplicantDAVINA MUNRO
Ninth ApplicantLES MUCKAN
Tenth ApplicantBEVERLEY SHOOTER
Continue reading Doolan v Native Title Registrar
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Doolan v Native Title Registrar [2007] FCA 192
- Case
- [2007] FCA 192
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, focusing on whether the applicant had established a connection to the land that gave rise to native title rights. The court considered the historical, cultural, and traditional practices of the applicant's group, as well as the legal criteria for recognising native title. The court found that the Delegate had erred in their assessment of the applicant's evidence, leading to an incorrect conclusion that the claim should be rejected. The court held that the applicant had demonstrated a sufficient connection to the land and that the native title rights claimed were valid. Consequently, the court ordered that the decision of the Delegate be set aside and that the Native Title Registrar accept the claim for registration.
In setting aside the decision of the Delegate, the court mandated specific rights to be entered into the register, including the right to hunt and fish, the right to access and move about, the right to camp, and the right to gather and use natural products. The court also directed the Native Title Registrar to consider additional rights that may be included in the register, taking into account the entire application and supporting material. This decision underscores the importance of a thorough and accurate assessment of native title claims, ensuring that the rights of Indigenous groups are properly recognised and protected under the law.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The decision of the Delegate of the Native Title Registrar made on 12 May 2006 be set aside.
2. The Native Title Registrar accept the claim for registration.
THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:
1. The Native Title Registrar enter into the register the following rights:
(a) The right to hunt and fish on the land and waters;
(b) The right to access and move about on the land and waters;
(c) The right to camp on the land; and
(d) The right to gather and use natural products on the land.
2. The Native Title Registrar consider what other rights should be included in the register, having regard to the entire application and the other material in support of it.
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: SPENDER J
Full text does not contain this section.