Griffiths v Minister for Lands, Planning and Environment

The parties to this case were Alan Griffiths and William Gulwin, acting on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali peoples, and the Minister for Lands, Planning and Environment. The dispute concerned the validity of notices of proposed compulsory acquisition of certain lots of land near Timber Creek in the Northern Territory. The appellants argued that the compulsory acquisition was invalid, particularly in relation to their native title rights and interests. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether section 43(1) of the *Lands Acquisition Act* (NT) conferred power on the Minister to compulsorily acquire land for any purpose, including solely for subsequent sale or lease for private use, and whether this power extended to the extinguishment of native title rights and interests. The court also considered whether section 24MD(2) of the *Native Title Act* 1993 (Cth) permitted the extinguishment of native title by compulsory acquisition when no other non-native title rights subsisted, and whether the *Lands Acquisition Act* (NT) provided sufficiently clear and express terms for the acquisition of native title interests, given their unique communal and spiritual characteristics.

A majority of the High Court, in separate judgments, found that the *Lands Acquisition Act* (NT) did confer the power to acquire land for any purpose, including for subsequent private development. They held that the Act did not require the acquisition to be for a direct governmental purpose. Furthermore, the majority concluded that the *Native Title Act* 1993 (Cth), specifically section 24MD(2), did permit the extinguishment of native title by compulsory acquisition under the *Lands Acquisition Act* (NT) even in the absence of other subsisting interests. The majority reasoned that the language of the *Lands Acquisition Act* (NT) was sufficiently broad to encompass the acquisition of native title interests, and that there was no requirement for express and plain language to that effect in this context.

The appeal was dismissed, with the appellants ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent.