Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 20 October 2020 38 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

Produced by the Legal Research Officer,
High Court of Australia Library

[2020] HCAB 8 (20 October 2020)

A record of recent High Court of Australia cases: decided, reserved for judgment, awaiting hearing in the Court’s original jurisdiction, granted special leave to appeal, refused special leave to appeal and not proceeding or vacated

1: Summary of New Entries
2: Cases Handed Down
3: Cases Reserved
4: Original Jurisdiction
5: Section 40 Removal
6: Special Leave Granted
7: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated
8: Special Leave Refused

1: Summary of New Entries

2: Cases Handed Down

Case	Title
Northern Land Council & Anor v Quall & Anor	Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
The Queen v Abdirahman-Khalif	Criminal Law
Hsiao v Fazarri	Family Law
ABT17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor	Immigration
AUS17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor	Immigration

3: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Oakey Coal Action Alliance Inc v New Acland Coal Pty Ltd & Ors	Administrative Law
Westpac Securities Administration Ltd & Anor v Australian Securities and Investments Commission	Corporations
Peniamina v The Queen	Criminal Law
Minister for Home Affairs v DUA16 & Anor; Minister for Home Affairs v CHK16 & Anor	Migration Law

4: Original Jurisdiction

Case	Title
Gerner & Anor v The State of Victoria	Constitutional Law

5: Section 40 Removal

6: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Sunland Group Limited & Anor v Gold Coast City Council	Administrative Law
Namoa v The Queen	Criminal Law
BNB17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor	Migration Law
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Moorcroft	Migration Law
Talacko v Talacko & Ors; Talacko v Bennett & Ors; Talacko v Talacko & Ors	Torts

7: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated

8: Special Leave Refused

2: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the September 2020 sittings.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

Northern Land Council & Anor v Quall & Anor

D21/2019: [2020] HCA 33

Judgment delivered: 7 October 2020

Coram: Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Nettle and Edelman JJ

Catchwords:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
– Native title – Representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander bodies – Indigenous land use agreements ("ILUAs") – Where s 203BE(1)(b) of Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) confers on representative body function of certifying applications for registration of ILUAs – Where s 203BE(5) prohibits representative body from certifying application for registration of ILUA unless satisfied that all reasonable efforts made to ensure all persons who hold or may hold native title have been identified and authorised making of agreement – Where s 27(1) of Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) provides that a Land Council may do all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with performance of its functions – Where Northern Land Council ("NLC") a representative body – Where CEO of NLC signed certificate purportedly as delegate of NLC certifying application for registration of ILUA…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read High Court Bulletin and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] HCAB 8
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Northern Land Council & Anor v Quall & Anor, the issue before the High Court was whether the Northern Land Council could delegate the function of certifying applications for registration of Indigenous Land Use Agreements to its CEO. The Court held that the function could be delegated and that the CEO could perform the function as an agent of the Council. The appeal was allowed and costs were to be borne in accordance with the parties' undertakings. In The Queen v Abdirahman-Khalif, the issue before the Court was whether the Crown was required to adduce evidence of the process by which the Islamic State recruited, inducted and accepted members, and whether the trial judge misdirected the jury as to the physical and mental elements of the offence, and whether the summing up was unbalanced. The Court held that the appeal should be allowed. In Hsiao v Fazarri, the issue before the Court was whether the primary judge failed to take existing legal and equitable interests of the parties into account for the purposes of s 79(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), whether the primary judge's approach to the deed of gift amounted to a failure to take a material consideration into account, whether it was open to the primary judge to determine that making of property settlement orders was just and equitable, whether it was open to the primary judge to assess that the appellant made a ten per cent financial contribution to the acquisition of the property, and whether the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia erred in refusing to exercise its discretion under s 93A(2) of the Family Law Act to receive further evidence on appeal. The Court held that the appeal should be dismissed with costs. The final orders of the Court were that the appeal be dismissed with costs.

Orders