La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council v Quarry Street Pty Ltd

The High Court of Australia considered a dispute between the La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council (the appellant) and Quarry Street Pty Ltd (the first respondent), concerning a claim made under section 36(2) of the *Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983* (NSW) for certain Crown lands. The land in question was subject to a lease granted by the Crown to Quarry Street Pty Ltd, but Quarry Street had not undertaken any purposeful activity on the land. The core of the dispute revolved around whether this land qualified as "claimable Crown lands" under section 36(1) of the Act, which defines such lands as those vested in the Crown that are "not lawfully used".

The legal issue before the High Court was whether land subject to an existing lease from the Crown, where the lessee had not engaged in any purposeful activity on the land, could still be considered "lawfully used" for the purposes of section 36(1)(b) of the *Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983* (NSW). This required the Court to interpret the meaning of "lawfully used" in the context of Crown lands subject to a lease, and whether the mere existence of a lease constituted lawful use, or if actual, purposeful interaction with the land was necessary.

The High Court reasoned that the phrase "lawfully used" in section 36(1)(b) of the Act requires more than just the existence of a lease; it necessitates actual, purposeful interaction with the land. The Court held that the doctrine of concurrent leases, which allows for multiple leases over the same land, and the concept of a reversionary interest held by the Crown did not equate to the land being "lawfully used" in the sense contemplated by the Act. The Court found that the legislative intent behind the Act was to provide for the transfer of lands that were not actively being used for a specific purpose, and that a mere leasehold interest, without actual use, did not satisfy this criterion. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the orders of the Court of Appeal were set aside, and the matter was remitted with specific directions regarding costs.