ABORIGINALS AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDERS – native title – claimant application for determination of native title – identification of native title holders.
ABORIGINALS AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDERS – native title – identification of traditional laws and customs in relation to land.
ABORIGINALS AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDERS – native title – extinguishment of native title – previous exclusive possession acts.
ABORIGINALS AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDERS – native title – extinguishment of native title – reservation or setting aside of land inconsistent with continuation of native title.
ABORIGINALS AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDERS – native title – Native Title Act s 47B – occupation of land at time of application.
ABORIGINALS AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDERS – native title – form of determination of native title.
Parks and Wildlife Commission Act (NT) Real Property Act (NT) Soil Conservation and Land Utilization Act (NT) Special Purposes Leases Act (NT) Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act (NT) Validation (Native Title) Act (NT) Validation of Titles and Actions Act 1994 (NT) Waste Lands Act 1857 (SA) Waste Lands Amendment Act 1865-1866 (SA) Water Act 1992 (NT) Wildlife Conservation and Control Ordinance1963 (NT)
MYRA HAYES AND OTHERS v THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA AND OTHERS
DG No 6002 of 1996
OLNEY J ALICE SPRINGS 9 SEPTEMBER 1999
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
DG No 6002 of 1996
BETWEEN:
MYRA HAYES AND OTHERS
APPLICANTS
AND:
THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA AND OTHERS
RESPONDENTS
OLNEY J:
The applicants in this matter seek a determination of native title in respect of 166 separate parcels of land in and near Alice Springs.
For reasons set out in the judgment I am about to publish, I have concluded that native title exists…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Hayes v Northern Territory
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Hayes v Northern Territory [1999] FCA 1248
Case
[1999] FCA 1248
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicants in this case were the traditional owners of land in the Northern Territory, represented by the Central Land Council, and the respondent was the Northern Territory of Australia. The dispute centred on the determination of native title over certain parcels of land, the identification of traditional laws and customs pertaining to that land, and the extinguishment of native title by virtue of previous acts of exclusive possession and inconsistent reservations of land. The matter was heard by the Federal Court of Australia.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the applicants could be identified as the native title holders of the land in question, what traditional laws and customs were associated with that land, and whether the native title had been extinguished by acts of exclusive possession or inconsistent reservations. The court also had to consider the appropriate form of the determination of native title in accordance with the Native Title Act.
The court found that the applicants were indeed the native title holders, identifying the traditional laws and customs that were relevant to the land. The court further determined that the native title had not been extinguished by previous acts of exclusive possession or inconsistent reservations. It was noted that the applicants had maintained a continuous connection with the land and its traditions. The court also held that the determination of native title should be made in a form that recognised and preserved the traditional laws and customs of the native title holders.
The final orders of the court were that the native title of the applicants over the land in question was recognised and protected, and that the determination of native title was to be made in a form that gave effect to the traditional laws and customs of the native title holders.