Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act v Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council [No 2]
Case
•
[2001] NSWCA 28
•22 February 2001
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act v Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council [No 2] [2001] NSWCA 28
[2001] NSWCA 28
22 February 2001
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act (the Minister) appealed from a decision of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which had upheld a claim by Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council (Deerubbin) for certain Crown lands. The dispute concerned whether the land was "claimable" under section 36(1)(c) of the *Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983* (NSW), which requires that the land not be "needed or likely to be needed for an essential public purpose." The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Land and Environment Court had erred in finding that the subject land was not needed or likely to be needed for an essential public purpose. This involved determining whether the question of whether land was likely to be needed for an essential public purpose was a question of law or fact, and interpreting the meaning of "likely" in the context of section 36(1)(c). The Court also considered whether the Land and Environment Court had correctly assessed the evidence, including facts that arose subsequent to Deerubbin's application.
The Court of Appeal held that the question of whether land was likely to be needed for an essential public purpose was a question of fact, not law. It further clarified that "likely" in this context meant a "real or not remote chance or possibility." The Court found that the Land and Environment Court had not erred in its factual findings, concluding that only one conclusion was open on the evidence presented. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Land and Environment Court had erred in finding that the subject land was not needed or likely to be needed for an essential public purpose. This involved determining whether the question of whether land was likely to be needed for an essential public purpose was a question of law or fact, and interpreting the meaning of "likely" in the context of section 36(1)(c). The Court also considered whether the Land and Environment Court had correctly assessed the evidence, including facts that arose subsequent to Deerubbin's application.
The Court of Appeal held that the question of whether land was likely to be needed for an essential public purpose was a question of fact, not law. It further clarified that "likely" in this context meant a "real or not remote chance or possibility." The Court found that the Land and Environment Court had not erred in its factual findings, concluding that only one conclusion was open on the evidence presented. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Native Title
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
-
Appeal
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Environment Protection Authority v BHP Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd [2001] NSWLEC 214
Cases Citing This Decision
91
Cases Cited
12
Statutory Material Cited
5
Little v Western Australia
[2001] FCA 1706
Harriott & Arena
[2016] FamCAFC 69
Boughey v the Queen
[1986] HCA 29