Fejo & Ors v Northern Territory

The High Court of Australia considered the appeal of Fejo and others against the Northern Territory. The dispute concerned the validity of certain legislative provisions of the Northern Territory which, it was argued, extinguished native title rights and interests in relation to land. The appellants, who were Aboriginal people, claimed that these provisions were inconsistent with the *Native Title Act 1993* (Cth) and therefore invalid to the extent of the inconsistency, pursuant to s 109 of the *Commonwealth Constitution*.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Northern Territory legislation, specifically the *Crown Lands Act 1992* (NT) and the *Pastoral Land Act 1992* (NT), validly extinguished native title rights and interests in the areas to which they applied. This required the Court to determine the nature and scope of the extinguishment provisions within the Northern Territory legislation and to assess their compatibility with the protections afforded to native title by the *Native Title Act 1993* (Cth).

The High Court held that the Northern Territory legislation did not extinguish native title. The Court reasoned that the legislative provisions in question did not evince a clear and unambiguous intention to extinguish native title. Instead, the legislation dealt with the grant of interests in Crown land and pastoral leases, and the extinguishment of native title required a more direct and express legislative act. The Court applied the principle that extinguishment of native title must be clear and unambiguous, and that any ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the continued existence of native title. The Court found that the Northern Territory legislation did not meet this high threshold for extinguishment.