Roberts on behalf of the Najig and the Guyanggan Nganawirdbird Groups v Northern Territory of Australia (No 2)

Case [2012] FCA 254


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 2002
Judge: 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)
Applicant

AND:

NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA
First Respondent

CAVE 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)
Applicant

AND:

NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA
First Respondent

APT PIPELINES (NT) PTY LTD
Second Respondent

CONSERVATION LAND CORPORATION
Third Respondent

ROPER GULF SHIRE COUNCIL
Fourth Respondent

NORTHERN CEMENT LTD
Fifth Respondent

NORTHERN TERRITORY LAND CORPORATION
Sixth Respondent

TELSTRA 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)
Applicant

AND:

NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA
First Respondent

CAVE 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)
Applicant

AND:

NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA
First Respondent

APT PIPELINES (NT) PTY LTD
Second Respondent

CONSERVATION LAND CORPORATION
Third Respondent

ROPER GULF SHIRE COUNCIL
Fourth Respondent

NORTHERN CEMENT LTD
Fifth Respondent

NORTHERN TERRITORY LAND CORPORATION
Sixth Respondent

TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
Eighth Respondent

JUDGE:

FINN J

DATE:

20 MARCH 2012

PLACE:

DARWIN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. 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. 

  2. 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

Details
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 case between Roberts, representing the Najig and Guyanggan Nganawirdbird Groups, and the Northern Territory of Australia involved a dispute over land rights and native title. The plaintiffs claimed rights to land in the Mataranka region, asserting traditional ownership and usage. The court was tasked with determining whether these claims were valid under the Native Title Act 1993. The primary issue was whether the plaintiffs could prove a continuous connection to the land and if their traditional laws and customs were sufficiently demonstrated. Additionally, the court needed to assess if the plaintiffs' rights and interests were not extinguished by the Crown's acquisition of sovereignty.

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.