Quarry Street Pty Ltd v Minister Administering the Crown Land Management Act 2016

Quarry Street Pty Ltd appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of the Land and Environment Court concerning a claim for Aboriginal land rights. The dispute centred on whether certain Crown land, which was subject to a lease granted by the Crown, was "claimable Crown land" under the *Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983* (NSW). The Minister administering the *Crown Land Management Act 2016* had determined the land was claimable, a decision that Quarry Street Pty Ltd sought to overturn.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the land in question, Lot 5 DP1156846, could be considered "claimable Crown land" within the meaning of the *Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983*, notwithstanding that it was subject to a lease granted by the Crown. This required the court to consider the definition of "land" for the purposes of the Act, and whether a "use" of the land, as contemplated by section 36(1)(b), could encompass a non-physical use, such as the Crown's retention and leasing of its estate in fee simple. The court also had to determine if the Minister's decision was affected by an error of law or was legally unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the definition of "land" under the *Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983* includes all estates and interests in the land. It held that the Crown's act of leasing the land constituted a "use" of its estate in fee simple, even in the absence of physical occupation by the tenant. The court emphasised that multiple concurrent users with different purposes must be considered independently. Consequently, the court found that the Minister's decision that the land was claimable Crown land was an error of law and legally unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Land and Environment Court. It made orders in the nature of certiorari to quash the Minister's decision and in the nature of mandamus to compel the Minister to refuse the land claim. The respondents were ordered to pay the appellant's costs.