JOHNNY JANGO, JUDY TRIGGER, MANTATJARA WILSON, NGOI NGOI DONALD AND WINDLASS ALURTIJA
v
NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA, GPT MANAGEMENT LIMITED AND COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
NTD 6023 of 1998
SUMMARY
In accordance with the practice of the Federal Court in certain cases of public interest, the Court has prepared a Summary to accompany the judgment that is to be delivered today. However, it must be emphasised that the Summary forms no part of the judgment. The only authoritative statement of the Court’s reasons is the judgment itself.
This Summary is intended to assist in understanding the principal conclusions reached by the Court, but is necessarily incomplete. The published Reasons for Judgment and this Summary will be available on the internet
Jango v Northern Territory of Australia [2006] FCA 318
1. This is the first case in the Federal Court in which Aboriginal applicants have sought a determination of compensation as the result of extinguishment of native title over land. The proceedings have been brought by the applicants under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (‘NTA’) on behalf of the members of a ‘compensation claim group’.
2. The applicants seek a determination in respect of the Town of Yulara in the Northern Territory (‘the Application Area’), which comprises an area of 104 square kilometres. The members of the compensation claim group are almost exclusively Yankunytjatjara or Pitjantjatjara people who, according to the applicants, held native title rights and interests in the Application Area and are entitled to compensation because their rights and interests were extinguished by certain ‘compensation acts’ that occurred over the period 1979 to 1992. The applicants say that the Northern Territory is liable under the NTA to pay compensation.
3. The Application Area incorporates the Yulara Tourist Village, which provides accommodation and other services for the tens of thousands of tourists who visit Ayres Rock (Uluru) and the Olgas (Kata Tjurta). The Application Area also incorporates Connellan Airport, which is the point of arrival for tourists travelling by air to visit the area.
4. The Application Area is located in the far south of the Northern Territory, just north of the South Australian border. It is in the eastern part of a large area generally described as the Western Desert, which encompasses parts of South Australia, the Northern Territory and Western Australia.
5. The applicants say that they and their predecessors held native title, as defined in s 223(1) of the NTA, over the Application Area under the traditional laws and customs of the Western Desert bloc. They say that native title has existed from the time the Crown asserted sovereignty over the eastern Western Desert in 1824 until the remaining native title rights and interests were extinguished by the compensation acts.
6. It is agreed that the only acts prior to 1979 that could have extinguished any pre-existing native title rights and interests over the Application Area were two pastoral leases granted over the land in the late nineteenth century. The…
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 Jango v Northern Territory
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Jango v Northern Territory of Australia [2006] FCA 318
Case
[2006] FCA 318
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Jango v Northern Territory involved the applicants, Jango and others, who sought leave to amend their claims against the Northern Territory and its agents. The dispute centred around the applicants' allegations of human rights violations, including unlawful detention, mistreatment, and inadequate healthcare. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicants were entitled to amend their claims and, if so, what conditions should apply to such amendments. Additionally, the court had to consider the application for compensation and the costs associated with the proceedings.
The court found that the applicants should be granted leave to amend their claims, but only under certain conditions. These conditions included ensuring that the amendments did not significantly prejudice the respondents and that they were not an abuse of the court process. The court held that the applicants had not shown sufficient grounds for compensation, thus dismissing that application. Regarding costs, the court ordered the respondents to file written submissions on the matter within 14 days, allowing for further deliberation on any additional orders they might seek.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The applicants be granted leave to amend par B1.8 of the Third Further Amended Points of Claim, subject to the qualifications referred to in pars 237, 238 and 239 of the Judgment herein.
2. The application for determination of compensation be dismissed.
3. The first and second respondents file brief written submissions within 14 days on costs and on such further orders (if any) they seek in the proceedings.