R v Kearney; Ex parte Northern Land Council

The High Court of Australia considered an application for a writ of prohibition brought by the Northern Land Council against the Honourable Mr. Justice Kearney, a judge of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The dispute concerned the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear and determine a claim for compensation for the disturbance of traditional Aboriginal land rights, brought by the Northern Land Council on behalf of certain Aboriginal clans against the Commonwealth of Australia. The Northern Land Council sought to prohibit the judge from continuing to hear the claim, arguing that the Supreme Court lacked the constitutional power to entertain such a claim.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory possessed the constitutional authority to adjudicate a claim for compensation for the disturbance of traditional Aboriginal land rights, particularly in light of the Commonwealth's legislative power under section 122 of the Constitution to make laws for the government of the Northern Territory. The Court was required to determine the extent of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, both at common law and under the Northern Territory Supreme Court Act 1979 (Cth), in relation to claims involving Aboriginal land rights and the Crown's prerogative.

The High Court, by majority, held that the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory did have the constitutional jurisdiction to hear the claim. The majority reasoned that the Supreme Court, as a superior court of record, possessed the inherent jurisdiction to hear and determine all claims brought before it, subject only to limitations imposed by statute or the Constitution. They found that neither the Commonwealth's legislative power under section 122 nor any other constitutional provision divested the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction to entertain claims for compensation arising from the disturbance of traditional land rights, even where those rights were recognised or created by Commonwealth legislation. The Court distinguished between the legislative power of the Commonwealth and the judicial power of the courts, affirming that the Supreme Court's jurisdiction was not extinguished by the existence of Commonwealth legislation governing Aboriginal land rights.

The application for a writ of prohibition was dismissed.