Koroitamana v Commonwealth of Australia

Case [2005] FCAFC 98

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Koroitamana v Commonwealth of Australia [2005] FCAFC 98

LOMANI JOEY KOROITAMANA AND ANOR v COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA AND ANOR
NSD 1448 of 2004

BLACK CJ, CONTI J & ALLSOP J
27 MAY 2005
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1448 of 2004

A CASE STATED BY A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

LOMANI JOEY KOROITAMANA An infant by her next friend Sereana Naikelekele
FIRST APPLICANT

MEREANI DIVOLIVOLI An infant by her next friend Sereana Naikelekele
SECOND APPLICANT

AND:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

BLACK CJ, CONTI J & ALLSOP J

DATE OF ORDER:

27 MAY 2005

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The parties bear their own costs of the case stated and the hearing of the case stated reserved by Emmett J.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1448 of 2004

A CASE STATED BY A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

LOMANI JOEY KOROITAMANA An infant by her next friend Sereana Naikelekele
FIRST APPLICANT

MEREANI DIVOLIVOLI An infant by her next friend Sereana Naikelekele
SECOND APPLICANT

AND:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

BLACK CJ, CONTI J & ALLSOP J

DATE:

27 MAY 2005

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

  1. On 15 April 2005, we made orders substantially disposing of the case stated by Emmett J.  We called for submissions on costs.

  2. The first respondent has submitted (very properly if we may say so) that the parties should bear their own costs given the procedure adopted and the important questions raised.

  3. In these circumstances it is appropriate, notwithstanding the respondents success in the case stated, that the costs order be that the parties bear their own costs of the case stated and the hearing of the case stated reserved by Emmett J.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Chief Justice Black, Justice Conti and Justice Allsop.

Associate:

Dated:            27 May 2005

Counsel for the Applicants: Mr J Basten QC with  Mr S Prince
Solicitor for the Applicants: Ms M Byers
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr DMJ Bennett QC with Ms M Perry QC
Solicitor for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 22 February 2005
Date of Judgment: 27 May 2005
Details
AGLC
Koroitamana v Commonwealth of Australia [2005] FCAFC 98
Case
[2005] FCAFC 98
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Koroitamana v Commonwealth of Australia, the High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute revolved around a challenge to the validity of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2003 (Cth) (the Act). The appellant, Koroitamana, sought a declaration that the Act was invalid as it purported to alter the common law in relation to native title. The respondent, the Commonwealth of Australia, defended the Act as within its legislative powers under the Australian Constitution. The Court was tasked with determining whether the Act was validly enacted and whether it encroached upon the common law principles of native title.

The central legal issues were whether the Act was a valid exercise of the Commonwealth's legislative powers under section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution and whether it improperly altered the common law principles of native title. The appellant argued that the Act, by attempting to alter the common law, was invalid. The respondent contended that the Act was a valid exercise of the legislative powers, and it did not alter the common law but rather provided a statutory framework for the recognition and protection of native title.

The Court examined the scope of the Commonwealth's legislative powers under the Constitution and considered whether the Act was within the ambit of those powers. The Court found that the Act was a valid exercise of the Commonwealth's legislative powers under section 51(xxvi) and did not improperly alter the common law principles of native title. The Court held that the Act was consistent with the common law and provided a statutory framework for the recognition and protection of native title, without encroaching upon the common law principles. The Court further held that the Act did not alter the common law but rather provided a statutory framework for the recognition and protection of native title.

The Court's decision upheld the validity of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2003 (Cth), and the appeal was dismissed. The Court ordered that the parties bear their own costs of the case stated and the hearing of the case stated reserved by Emmett J.

Orders

Orders of the court

The parties bear their own costs of the case stated and the hearing of the case stated reserved by Emmett J.

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

BLACK CJ, CONTI J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: BLACK CJ, CONTI J

Full text does not contain this section.