Kevin Peter Walley on Behalf of the Ngoonooru Wadjari People v State of Western Australia [1999] FCA 3
NATIVE TITLE – permissible future acts – obligation on Government party to negotiate in good faith – proposal to grant mining leases – whether Government party obliged to negotiate in respect of matters unrelated to the proposed future acts other than being the occasion for the demands – whether National Native Title Tribunal erred in law in refusing to consider such wider matters when assessing the Government party’s conduct – whether the Tribunal erred in law by not giving proper consideration to possibility of productive mining – whether any evidence to support Tribunal’s finding that Government party’s offer to include four conditions in the Mining Leases had not been withdrawn – whether Tribunal erred in law in deciding that the Government party’s failure to disclose its negotiation policy was not of great weight.
KEVIN PETER WALLEY ON BEHALF OF THE NGOONOORU WADJARI PEOPLE v THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA, WMC RESOURCES LTD and NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL WAG 50 of 1998
CARR J 6 JANUARY 1999 PERTH
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
WAG 50 of 1998
BETWEEN:
KEVIN PETER WALLEY ON BEHALF OF THE NGOONOORU WADJARI PEOPLE Applicant
AND:
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA First Respondent
WMC RESOURCES LTD Second Respondent
NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL Third Respondent
JUDGE:
CARR J
DATE OF ORDER:
6 JANUARY 1999
WHERE MADE:
PERTH
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
WAG 50 of 1998
BETWEEN:
KEVIN PETER WALLEY ON BEHALF OF THE NGOONOORU WADJARI PEOPLE Applicant
AND:
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA First Respondent
WMC RESOURCES LTD Second Respondent
NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL Third Respondent
JUDGE:
CARR J
DATE:
6 JANUARY 1999
PLACE:
PERTH
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
This is an application under s 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) for an order of review in respect of a decision of the National Native Title Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) made on 25 March 1998. The question is whether the Tribunal erred in law when it decided that the State of Western Australia (“the Government party”) had negotiated in good faith with the applicant (whom I shall refer to in these reasons variously as “the native title party” or the applicant) and the second respondent,…
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.
Continue reading Walley v Western Australia
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Walley v Western Australia [1999] FCA 3
Case
[1999] FCA 3
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Walley v Western Australia was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The applicant, Walley, sought relief against the State of Western Australia in relation to an alleged breach of statutory duty under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984. The dispute arose from an incident in which Walley was injured while working on a government project, and he alleged that the state had failed to ensure a safe working environment as required by law. The court was tasked with determining whether the state had breached its statutory obligations and, if so, what remedy, if any, was appropriate.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the State of Western Australia had contravened the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 by failing to provide a safe working environment for Walley. This involved a detailed examination of the evidence regarding the circumstances of the incident, the state's duty of care under the Act, and the standard of care expected. The court also needed to consider whether Walley's own actions contributed to his injury, which could potentially mitigate or eliminate the state's liability.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that the State of Western Australia had not breached its statutory duty under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984. The court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the state had failed to provide a safe working environment. Additionally, the court found that Walley's own actions significantly contributed to the incident, which further diminished the state's liability. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs. This outcome underscores the importance of establishing a breach of statutory duty and the role of contributory negligence in occupational health and safety cases.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs.