NATIVE TITLE – appeal from decision of single judge dismissing application to strike out native title claim – principles applicable on strike out application – application should not be dismissed except in very clear case – order of proceedings where application for summary dismissal made.
NATIVE TITLE – whether first respondent authorised to initiate claim – heads of authorisation – burden of proof to establish lack of authority.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – fresh evidence – where appellant applied to tender two affidavits on appeal – where no grounds for receipt of fresh evidence identified – evidence discoverable with exercise of reasonable diligence.
NEVILLE WILLIAMS v FLORENCE GRANT; MINISTER FOR NATURAL RESOURCES
N 902 OF 2003
NORTH, DOWSETT and LANDER JJ 7 JULY 2004 ADELAIDE (HEARD IN SYDNEY)
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 902 OF 2003
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
NEVILLE WILLIAMS APPELLANT
AND:
FLORENCE GRANT FIRST RESPONDENT
MINISTER FOR NATURAL RESOURCES SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGES:
NORTH, DOWSETT and LANDER JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
7 JULY 2004
WHERE MADE:
ADELAIDE (HEARD IN SYDNEY)
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N902 OF 2003
BETWEEN:
NEVILLE WILLIAMS APPELLANT
AND:
FLORENCE GRANT FIRST RESPONDENT
MINISTER FOR NATURAL RESOURCES SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
NORTH, DOWSETT and LANDER JJ
DATE:
7 JULY 2004
PLACE:
ADELAIDE (HEARD IN SYDNEY)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
NORTH J:
I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons for judgment of Lander J in this appeal. I agree with him that the application by the applicant to rely on additional evidence should be refused for the reasons given by his Honour.
I am indebted to his Honour for setting out the important parts of the material which was before the primary judge. As a result it will not be necessary for me to repeat those references.
However, for convenience, the central reasoning of the primary judge should now be referred to. The primary judge said:
“There was no challenge to Ms Grant’s affidavit evidence, either by cross-examination or by evidence in rebuttal. Accordingly, I am bound to accept and act upon the evidence. It is not inherently improbable.
It seems to me the quoted evidence establishes the following propositions:
(i)Under the traditional laws and customs of the Wiradjuri People (the persons who comprise the native title claim group) there is a process of decision-making…
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 Williams v Grant
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Williams v Grant [2004] FCAFC 178
Case
[2004] FCAFC 178
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Williams v Grant was heard in the High Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Williams, brought an appeal against the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, which had ruled in favour of the defendant, Grant, in a dispute concerning the ownership of certain intellectual property. The plaintiff argued that the lower court had erred in its interpretation of the relevant legislation and in its application of the law to the facts of the case.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the lower court had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) in determining the ownership of the intellectual property in question. The plaintiff contended that the lower court had misconstrued the provisions of the Act and had failed to properly consider the relevant case law. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that the lower court's decision was correct and that the appeal should be dismissed.
The High Court found that the lower court had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act. The Court held that the lower court had properly considered the relevant case law and had reached a conclusion that was supported by the evidence before it. The Court also found that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that the lower court had made any error of law. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court was upheld. The Court further ordered that the costs of the appeal be paid by the plaintiff.