Pareroultja & Ors v Tickner

[1994] HCATrans 272

•

.

,. - ·"~.r ,lsb!flllll!

•

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No Sl56 of 1993

B e t w e e n -

JANICE PAREROULTJA, DULCIE

JUKKADAI, ELFREIDA UNGWANAKA

and MAGDELINE UNGWANAKA

Applicants

and

ROBERT TICKNER

First Respondent

and

KUNMANARA BREADEN and MAX

STUART

Second Respondents

Application for special leave

to appeal

MASON CJ
BRENNAN J

DEANE J
DAWSON J
TOOHEY J
GAUDRON J

McHUGH J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 13 APRIL 1994, AT 10.27 AM

(Continued from 12/4/94)

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

Pareroultja(2) 89 13/4/94

MASON CJ:  The Court need not trouble you, Mr Barker, nor

you, Mr Castan. What I am about to say represents

the views of the majority of the Court,

Justices Deane and Gaudron dissenting.

This is an application for special leave to

appeal from a unanimous judgment of the Full Court
of the Federal Court answering questions in a case

stated. Having considered the detailed arguments

presented in support of the application, the Court

has come to the conclusion that, in relation to the

first three grounds of appeal, the proposed appeal

does not enjoy sufficient prospects of ultimate

success to warrant the grant of special leave.

In saying that, we are not to be taken as

necessarily agreeing with the conclusion of the

Full Court that the grant of an estate in fee

simple to a Land Trust under the Aboriginal Land

Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) is

consistent with the preservation of native title to

the land the subject of that grant.

With respect to the further ground based on

the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), we do not consider

that it would be appropriate, in the circumstances

of this case, to grant special leave on this ground

alone when the Court lacks the advantage of any

consideration of the ground by the Federal Court,
that aspect not being before the Federal Court. In
addition, there is the circumstance that, although
the validity of the Native Title Act is common
ground between the parties, there is a pending

challenge to the validity of that Act.

The application for special leave is therefore

refused.

MR BARKER:	I seek costs, if Your Honours please.
MASON CJ: And you also, I suppose, Mr Castan, do you?
MR CASTAN:	Yes, Your Honour.
MASON CJ:	Do you have any submission to make to the Court

on that, Mr Sullivan?

MR SULLIVAN: Only a brief one, Your Honour. As the Full

Court found below, this appeal was a matter of

public importance and, bearing in mind the

character of the appellants, in our respectful

submission, an appropriate order would be that each

party pay their own costs as ordered by the Federal

Court.

Pareroultja(2) 90 13/4/94

MASON CJ:  We see no basis for departing from the ordinary

rule that costs follow the event.	The application
is therefore refused with costs.

The Court will now adjourn until 10.15 am

tomorrow.

AT 10.30 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

13/4/94

Pareroultja(2) 91