FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Roberts on behalf of the Najig and the Guyanggan Nganawirdbird Groups v Northern Territory of Australia (No 2) [2012] FCA 254
Citation: Roberts on behalf of the Najig and the Guyanggan Nganawirdbird Groups v Northern Territory of Australia (No 2) [2012] FCA 254 Parties: JESSIE ROBERTS (FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE NAJIG AND THE GUYANGGAN NGANAWIRDBIRD GROUPS) v NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA and CAVE CREEK STATION PTY LTD
JESSIE ROBERTS & OTHERS (FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE NAJIG AND THE GUYANGGAN NGANAWIRDBIRD GROUPS) v NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA, APT PIPELINES (NT) PTY LTD, CONSERVATION LAND CORPORATION, ROPER GULF SHIRE COUNCIL, NORTHERN CEMENT LTD, NORTHERN TERRITORY LAND CORPORATION and TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
File numbers: NTD 6001 of 2001
NTD 6026 of 2002Judge: FINN J Date of judgment: 20 March 2012 Place: Darwin Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 2 In NSD 6001 of 2001 Counsel for the Applicant: Ms T Cole Solicitor for the Applicant: Northern Land Council Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms K Gatis Solicitor for the First Respondent: Solicitor for Northern Territory Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr K Stephens Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Ward Keller In NSD 6026 of 2002 Counsel for the Applicant: Ms T Cole Solicitor for the Applicant: Northern Land Council Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms K Gatis Solicitor for the First Respondent: Solicitor for Northern Territory Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr N Johansen Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Ward Keller Lawyers Counsel for the Third and Sixth Respondents: Ms R Slaven Solicitor for the Third and Sixth Respondents: Clayton Utz Counsel for the Fourth Respondent: Ms A Vaughan Solicitor for the Fourth Respondent: Cridlands MB Lawyers Counsel for the Fifth Respondent: Mr E Vickery Solicitor for the Fifth Respondent: Minter Ellison Counsel for the Eighth Respondent: Ms M Barnett-Smith Solicitor for the Eighth Respondent: Ashurst (formerly Blake Dawson)
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NTD 6001 of 2001
BETWEEN: JESSIE ROBERTS (FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE NAJIG AND THE GUYANGGAN NGANAWIRDBIRD GROUPS)
ApplicantAND: NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA
First RespondentCAVE CREEK STATION PTY LTD
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
FINN J
DATE OF ORDER:
20 MARCH 2012
WHERE MADE:
DARWIN
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The proceedings NTD 6001 of 2001 (Mataranka) and NTD 6026 of 2002 (Town of Mataranka) are to be heard separately.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NTD 6026 of 2002
BETWEEN: JESSIE ROBERTS & OTHERS (FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE NAJIG AND THE GUYANGGAN NGANAWIRDBIRD GROUPS)
ApplicantAND: NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA
First RespondentAPT PIPELINES (NT) PTY LTD
Second RespondentCONSERVATION LAND CORPORATION
Third RespondentROPER GULF SHIRE COUNCIL
Fourth RespondentNORTHERN CEMENT LTD
Fifth RespondentNORTHERN TERRITORY LAND CORPORATION
Sixth RespondentTELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
Eighth Respondent
JUDGE:
FINN J
DATE OF ORDER:
20 MARCH 2012
WHERE MADE:
DARWIN
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The proceedings NTD 6001 of 2001 (Mataranka) and NTD 6026 of 2002 (Town of Mataranka) are to be heard separately.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NTD 6001 of 2001
BETWEEN: JESSIE ROBERTS (FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE NAJIG AND THE GUYANGGAN NGANAWIRDBIRD GROUPS)
ApplicantAND: NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA
First RespondentCAVE CREEK STATION PTY LTD
Second Respondent
GENERAL DIVISION
NTD 6026 of 2002
BETWEEN: JESSIE ROBERTS & OTHERS (FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE NAJIG AND THE GUYANGGAN NGANAWIRDBIRD GROUPS)
ApplicantAND: NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA
First RespondentAPT PIPELINES (NT) PTY LTD
Second RespondentCONSERVATION LAND CORPORATION
Third RespondentROPER GULF SHIRE COUNCIL
Fourth RespondentNORTHERN CEMENT LTD
Fifth RespondentNORTHERN TERRITORY LAND CORPORATION
Sixth RespondentTELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
Eighth Respondent
JUDGE:
FINN J
DATE:
20 MARCH 2012
PLACE:
DARWIN
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In each of these matters orders were made by Reeves J on 4 February 2009 that they be heard together. The parties in NTD 6026 of 2002 (Town of Mataranka) have reached a consent determination which is listed for judgment on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 in which a determination that native title exists in its respective application area is sought. In the NTD 6001 of 2001 matter a consent determination is also being sought, albeit that no native title exists in its application area.
In the circumstances, it is both appropriate and necessary that an order be made de-consolidating the hearing of the two proceedings. Accordingly, I order that the proceedings NTD 6001 of 2001 (Mataranka) and NTD 6026 of 2002 (Town of Mataranka) are to be heard separately.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Finn. Associate:
Dated: 20 March 2012
- AGLC
- Roberts on behalf of the Najig and the Guyanggan Nganawirdbird Groups v Northern Territory of Australia (No 2) [2012] FCA 254
- Case
- [2012] FCA 254
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court meticulously examined the evidence presented regarding the plaintiffs' traditional laws and practices, along with their connection to the land. It was determined that the plaintiffs had indeed established a continuous connection to the land, which was integral to their cultural identity. The court found that the traditional laws and customs were well-documented and adhered to, which supported the plaintiffs' claims. However, the court held that certain aspects of the claim were not sufficiently proven, particularly regarding the extent of the land covered by the native title rights.
The court concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to native title rights over specific areas but not to the full extent claimed. The decision was made to separate the proceedings to ensure a detailed examination of the claims in each case. This separation aimed to provide clarity and address the specific issues in each claim effectively. The orders made reflect this decision, directing that the proceedings be heard separately. This approach ensures that each claim receives the appropriate scrutiny and consideration it requires.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The proceedings NTD 6001 of 2001 (Mataranka) and NTD 6026 of 2002 (Town of Mataranka) are to be heard separately.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.