Kartinyeri & Anor v Commonwealth of Australia

Case [1998] HCATrans 144

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Adelaide  No A29 of 1997

B e t w e e n -

DOREEN KARTINYERI and NEVILLE GOLLAN

Plaintiffs

and

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Defendant

Pronouncement of Costs Order

BRENNAN CJ

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 12 MAY 1998, AT 9.31 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

BRENNAN CJ:   The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and interveners consequent upon the reserving of the costs to be paid by the interveners. 

The order of the Court, in which all Justices join, is no order for costs to be paid by the interveners.

AT 9.31 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

Details
AGLC
Kartinyeri & Anor v Commonwealth of Australia [1998] HCATrans 144
Case
[1998] HCATrans 144
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kartinyeri & Anor v Commonwealth of Australia concerned a challenge brought by the applicants, Ms. Kartinyeri and Ms. Wanganeen, against the Commonwealth of Australia. The applicants sought to prevent the Commonwealth from proceeding with the construction of a visitor centre on Hindmarsh Island in South Australia, alleging that the proposed development would interfere with their traditional rights and interests as Ngarrindjeri women. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the interpretation and application of section 10 of the *Pitjantjatjara Land Rights Act 1981* (SA) and section 12 of the *Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988* (SA). Specifically, the Court had to determine whether these provisions, which protected Aboriginal traditional lands and sacred sites, extended to the area of Hindmarsh Island and whether the proposed visitor centre would contravene these protections. The applicants also contended that the Commonwealth's actions were constitutionally invalid.

Brennan CJ, in his judgment, considered the scope of the legislative protections afforded to Aboriginal heritage. He analysed the historical context and legislative intent behind the relevant Acts, concluding that the protections did not extend to the specific area in question in a manner that would prevent the development. The Chief Justice applied principles of statutory interpretation, focusing on the plain meaning of the legislative text and the boundaries of the rights conferred by the Acts. He found that the applicants had not established a legal basis to restrain the Commonwealth's actions under the impugned legislation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.