Sturt on behalf of the Jaru Native Title Claim v State of Western Australia
Case
•
[2018] FCA 1923
•6 December 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Sturt on behalf of the Jaru Native Title Claim v State of Western Australia [2018] FCA 1923
[2018] FCA 1923
6 December 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Sturt on behalf of the Jaru Native Title Claim v State of Western Australia involved a dispute over the recognition of native title by the Jaru People in Western Australia. The case was before the Federal Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether the proposed consent determination, which included certain apical ancestors and native title holders, was appropriate under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). An interlocutory application was brought prior to the determination challenging the inclusion of certain apical ancestors, however, the list of apical ancestors was duly authorised by the claim group, satisfying the requirements of section 87A of the Native Title Act.
The legal issues before the court were whether the inclusion of the apical ancestors and native title holders in the proposed consent determination was appropriate and whether the requirements of the Native Title Act had been satisfied. The court found that the requirements of the Act had been satisfied and that it was appropriate to make the orders sought. The Jaru People had persistence and determination in their pursuit of recognition of their native title, and the legal representatives and representative body, the Kimberley Land Council, played an important role in achieving this outcome. The court also acknowledged the support of the State and other active respondents in this outcome.
The court's reasoning was that the requirements of the Native Title Act had been satisfied, and the proposed consent determination provided a permanent record of the recognition of the Jaru People's native title. The court hoped that all Jaru people would see this determination as an opportunity for them to make choices about how best to achieve the protection of their country. The final orders provided that the determination of native title would take effect immediately upon the Court making a determination under sections 56(1) or 57(2) of the Native Title Act, on proper material filed by the Jaru applicant.
The legal issues before the court were whether the inclusion of the apical ancestors and native title holders in the proposed consent determination was appropriate and whether the requirements of the Native Title Act had been satisfied. The court found that the requirements of the Act had been satisfied and that it was appropriate to make the orders sought. The Jaru People had persistence and determination in their pursuit of recognition of their native title, and the legal representatives and representative body, the Kimberley Land Council, played an important role in achieving this outcome. The court also acknowledged the support of the State and other active respondents in this outcome.
The court's reasoning was that the requirements of the Native Title Act had been satisfied, and the proposed consent determination provided a permanent record of the recognition of the Jaru People's native title. The court hoped that all Jaru people would see this determination as an opportunity for them to make choices about how best to achieve the protection of their country. The final orders provided that the determination of native title would take effect immediately upon the Court making a determination under sections 56(1) or 57(2) of the Native Title Act, on proper material filed by the Jaru applicant.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Indigenous Peoples & Native Title Law
Legal Concepts
-
Native Title
-
Consent Determination
-
Apical Ancestors
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Sturt on behalf of the Jaru Native Title Claim v State of Western Australia [2018] FCA 1923
Most Recent Citation
Douglas on behalf of the Kabi Kabi First Nation Traditional Owners Native Title Claim Group v State of Queensland (No 4) [2024] FCA 641
Cases Citing This Decision
28
Jaru Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v Northern Minerals Limited
[2022] NNTTA 39
Jaru Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v Northern Minerals Limited
[2022] NNTTA 37
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
16
Billy Patch and Others on behalf of the Birriliburu People v State of Western Australia
[2008] FCA 944
Drury on behalf of the Nanda People v State of Western Australia
[2018] FCA 1849