The Nyamal Palyku Proceeding (No 4) - [2022] FCA 284

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
The Nyamal Palyku Proceeding (No 4) [2022] FCA 284

File numbers: WAD 392 of 2018
WAD 20 of 2019
WAD 23 of 2019
WAD 483 of 2018

Judgment of: COLVIN J

Date of judgment: 25 March 2022

Catchwords: NATIVE TITLE - objection to evidence - where objections concerned the inclusion of findings of fact from an interlocutory judgment dismissing an application to summarily dismiss the claim - whether findings of fact admissible on the basis that they were finally determined by the interlocutory judgment - alternative claim that issue estoppel prevents the parties from departing from those findings - evidence received for the limited purpose of advancing claim of issue estoppel at final hearing

Legislation: Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ss 82, 86

Cases cited:
Bank of Scotland v Hussain [2010] EWHC 2812

Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd [1999] HCA 9; (1999) 198 CLR 334

Chambers v An Board Pleanala [1992] IR 134 SC

Dale v State of Western Australia [2011] FCAFC 46; (2011) 191 FCR 521

Fidelitas Shipping Co Ltd v V/O Exportchleb [1966] 1 QB 630

Fortescue Metals Group v Warrie on behalf of the Yindjibarndi People [2019] FCAFC 177; (2019) 273 FCR 350

Kuligowski v Metrobus [2004] HCA 34; (2004) 220 CLR 363

Melbourne City Investments Pty Ltd v Leighton Holdings Ltd [2015] VSCA 235

Nyamal Palyku Proceeding [2020] FCA 428

Quall v Northern Territory of Australia [2009] FCAFC 157; (2009) 180 FCR 528

Ramsay v Pigrim (1968) 118 CLR 271

Renaissance Leisure Group Inc v Frazer (2001) 197 DLR (4th) 336

Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 28; (2015) 256 CLR 507

Zetta Jet Pte Ltd v The Ship 'Dragon Pearl' (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 132; (2018) 265 FCR 290

Division: General Division

Registry: Western Australia

National Practice Area: Native Title

Number of paragraphs: 32

Date of hearing: 2 February 2022

Solicitor for the Nyamal Applicant: Mr T Keely SC with Mr J Edwards of Arma Legal

Solicitor for the Palyku Applicants: Mr V Hughston SC with Ms T Jowett of Cross Country Native Title Services

Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr G Ranson of the State Solicitor's Office

ORDERS

WAD 392 of 2018
WAD 20 of 2019
WAD 23 of 2019
WAD 483 of 2018

BETWEEN:
KEVIN CHARLES ALLEN AND OTHERS

Nyamal #1 Applicant

TAMMY O'CONNOR AND OTHERS

Palyku Applicant

KEVIN STREAM AND OTHERS

Palyku #2 Applicant

AND:
STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA AND OTHERS

Respondents

ORDER MADE BY:

COLVIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

25 MARCH 2022

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:
1.The parties include notations that reflect these reasons in the schedule being prepared by the parties setting out the extent to which objections have been conceded or upheld and the basis upon which particular evidence is to be received.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
COLVIN J:

Various native title proceedings have been commenced in respect of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read The Nyamal Palyku Proceeding (No 4) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] FCA 284
Decision Date: 25 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Nyamal Palyku Proceeding (No 4) involved a dispute over native title claims in Australia. The case was before the Federal Court of Australia, where the Nyamal and Palyku people sought recognition of their native title rights over certain land. The primary dispute was whether certain evidence, specifically findings of fact from an earlier interlocutory judgment, could be admitted in the current proceedings. This interlocutory judgment had previously dismissed an application to summarily dismiss the native title claim. The defendants objected to the inclusion of these findings of fact, arguing they were inadmissible as they had already been finally determined by the interlocutory judgment. The claimants, however, argued that the findings of fact could be admitted for the limited purpose of advancing a claim of issue estoppel at the final hearing.

The legal issues before the court included the admissibility of evidence that had already been finally determined in a prior proceeding and whether issue estoppel could prevent the parties from departing from those findings. The court had to determine if the findings of fact could be received for the limited purpose of advancing a claim of issue estoppel and whether such estoppel applied in the circumstances of the case. The court also considered the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel and how they might influence the admissibility of the evidence in question.

The court ruled that the findings of fact from the interlocutory judgment were admissible for the limited purpose of advancing a claim of issue estoppel at the final hearing. It found that while the findings of fact had already been finally determined, they could still be relevant in the context of issue estoppel. The court held that issue estoppel could prevent the parties from departing from those findings if certain conditions were met. The court ultimately allowed the evidence to be received for the limited purpose of the issue estoppel claim, balancing the need for finality in legal proceedings with the requirement to fairly address all relevant issues in the case.

The final orders of the court were that the evidence in question would be received for the limited purpose of advancing a claim of issue estoppel. The court did not make a definitive ruling on the issue estoppel claim itself, leaving it to be determined at the final hearing. This decision allowed the claimants to proceed with their argument that issue estoppel applied, subject to the outcome of the final hearing.

Orders