Minister for Lands, Planning and Environment v Griffiths - [2004] NTCA 5

Minister for Lands, Planning and Environment v Griffiths & Ors [2004] NTCA 5

PARTIES:MINISTER FOR LANDS, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT

v
ALAN GRIFFITHS AND WILLIAM GULWIN ON BEHALF OF THE NGALIWURRU AND NUNGALI PEOPLES

AND

LANDS AND MINING TRIBUNAL

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  CIVIL APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:AP 18 of 2003 (20207368)
DELIVERED:  10 May 2004
HEARING DATES:  22, 23 March 2004
JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN (BR) CJ, MILDREN & RILEY JJ
CATCHWORDS:

ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDERS – native title – Lands Acquisition Act (NT) 2001 - whether notices of acquisition valid – whether Minister can acquire native title interests alone – whether Minister can acquire land without acquiring the fee simple
WORDS AND PHRASES – construction of the words “for any purpose whatsoever” – whether power can only be exercised for a purpose “in relation to the Territory” – whether power can be exercised for any lawful purpose in respect of which the Legislation has powers to make laws
Pearce and Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia, 5^th ed, par [2.29] to [2.30]
Crowns Lands Act 1992 (NT), s 76; Interpretation Act, s 61; Lands Acquisition Act 1978 (NT), s 4(1), s 5A(1)(a), s 5A(1)(b), s 28A(4), s 33(1)(b), s 33(3)(b), s 38AA(2)(d), s 43, s 43(1)(b), s 45(1A), s 45A, s 46(1), s 48; Lands Acquisition Act 1955 (Cth), s 5(1), s 6; Native Title Act (1993)(Cth), s 24MD(2), s (6A), s (6B)(a), s 190A, s 238; Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 (Cth), s 50(1); Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)
Airservices Australia v Canadian Airlines International Ltd & Ors (2001) 202 CLR 133 at 271; Clunies-Ross v The Commonwealth (1984) 155 CLR 193 at 201; Commonwealth v Maddalozzo (1980) 29 ALR 161 at 169; Drew, Robinson & Co v Shearer & another (1914) 18 CLR 209 at 221; Fell v Fell (19922) 31 CLR 268 at 275; Foley v Padley (1983) 154 CLR 349 at 371; Julius v Bishop of Oxford (1880) 5 App Cas 214; Mabo & Anor v The State of Queensland & Anor (1988) 166 CLR 186; McCawley v The King & Ors (1919) 26 CLR 9 at 67; Murphyores Inc v The Commonwealth (1976) 136 CLR 1 at 12; Padfield v Minister of Agriculture (1968) AC 997 at 1033; State of South Australia v Tanner & Ors (1988-89) 166 CLR 161 at 180; State of Western Australia v The Commonwealth (Native Title Act case) (1994-95) 183 CLR 373 at 483-494; The Queen v Toohey, ex parte Northern Land Council (1981) 151 CLR 170 at 232-233; The Queen v Young (1999) 46 NSWLR 681; The Waterside Workers’ Federation of Australia v J W Alexander Ltd (1918) 25 CLR 434 at 465-466; The Wik Peoples v The State of Queensland & Ors (1996) 187 CLR 1; Widgee Shire Council v Bonney (1907) 4 CLR 977 at 983, referred to
Andrews v Howell (1941) 65 CLR 255 at 281; Attorney-General of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Minister for Lands, Planning and Environment v Griffiths and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] NTCA 5
Decision Date: 10 May 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Minister for Lands, Planning and Environment v Griffiths, the dispute involved the Minister for Lands, Planning and Environment, who sought to acquire certain land under the Lands Acquisition Act (NT) 2001. The case was brought before the court to determine the validity of notices of acquisition issued by the Minister, as well as the Minister’s ability to acquire native title interests independently and to acquire land without acquiring the fee simple.

The legal issues before the court included whether the notices of acquisition were valid, whether the Minister could acquire native title interests on his own, and whether the Minister could acquire land without acquiring the fee simple. The court was also tasked with interpreting the phrase “for any purpose whatsoever” within the context of the Lands Acquisition Act and determining whether the power to acquire land could only be exercised for a purpose related to the Territory, or if it could be exercised for any lawful purpose in respect of which the Legislation has powers to make laws.

The court found that the notices of acquisition were valid and that the Minister could acquire native title interests independently. The court also determined that the phrase “for any purpose whatsoever” should be interpreted in light of the purpose for which the Lands Acquisition Act was enacted, and that the power to acquire land could be exercised for any lawful purpose in respect of which the Legislation has powers to make laws. The court concluded that there was no breach of the Racial Discrimination Act, as the acquisition was authorised by the Native Title Act.

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders made by the Court at the first instance. In lieu thereof, the court dismissed the originating motion. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal as well as in the court below. Justice Riley concurred with Justice Mildren’s findings and reasons.

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

As what is in contemplation by the Minister is specifically authorised by the NTA, there is no breach of the Racial Discrimination Act.Conclusion In conclusion, the appeal must be allowed and the orders made by the Court at the first instance must be set aside. In lieu thereof there should be an order dismissing the originating motion. The respondent should pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal as well as in the court below.Riley J: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Mildren J. I agree with the orders he proposes and with his reasons.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.