Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council v Williams - [2017] ACTCA 46

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:	Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council v Williams
Citation:	[2017] ACTCA 46
Hearing Date:	7 August 2017
DecisionDate:	23 October 2017
Before:	Murrell CJ, Burns and Mossop JJ
Decision:	See [88]
Catchwords:	ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDERS – ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS – special case – statutory interpretation – Aboriginal Land – Jervis Bay Territory – whether the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT) is capable of operating concurrently with the Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Act 1986 (Cth) within the meaning of s 46 of the Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Act 1986 (Cth)
Legislation Cited:	Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Act 1986 (Cth), ss 4, 5, 6, 6(b), 7, 8, 9, 9A, 10, 13, 13(3), 14, 17, 17(1), 17(2), 18, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 38(1), 38(2), 38(3), 38(3)(a), 40, 40(a), 40(b), 40(c), 41, 42, 46 Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth), ss 10, 11 ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (ACT), s 84 ACT Self Government (Consequential Provisions) Act 1988 (Cth) Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 15AB Australian Antarctic Territory Act 1954 (Cth), s 6 Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Cth), s 28 Australian Constitution, s109 Court Procedures Act 2004 (ACT), s 27 Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth), s 61 Heard Island and McDonald Islands Act 1953 (Cth), s 5 Jervis Bay Territory Acceptance Act 1915 (Cth), ss 4(2), 4(3), 4A, 4C, 4F Life Insurance Act 1945 (Cth) Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT), ss 4, 4(1), 4(2), 6A, 6B, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F, 8, 8(1)(c)(ii), 9, 9(1), 10, 83, sch 1 Seat of Government Acceptance Act 1909 (Cth) First Schedule, cl 5 Seat of Government Act 1908 (Cth), s 3 Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910 (Cth) Seat of Government Surrender Act 1915 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Attorney-General (NT) v Hand (1989) 25 FCR 345 Australian Broadcasting Commission v Industrial Court of South Australia (1977) 138 CLR 399 Australian Mutual Provident Society v Goulden (1986) 160 CLR 330 Butler v Attorney-General (Vic) (1961) 106 CLR 268 Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory [2013] HCA 55; 250 CLR 441 Dau v Australian Postal Commission (1987) 162 CLR 317 Federal Capital Commission v Laristan Building and Investment Co Pty Ltd (1929) 42 CLR 582 Northern Territory v GPAO [1999] HCA 8; 196 CLR 553 R v Kearney; Ex parte Japanangka (1984) 158 CLR 395 Victoria v Commonwealth (1937) 58 CLR 618 Webster v Macintosh (1980) 49 FLR 317 Western Australia v Commonwealth (1995) 183 CLR 373 Williams v Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council [2015] ACAT 79 Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council v Williams [2016] ACTSC 240
Texts Cited:	Commonwealth, Royal Commission into Aboriginal Land Rights, Aboriginal Land Rights Commission: Second Report, (1974) Mark Leeming, Resolving Conflicts of Laws (The Federation Press, 2011) Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 29 May 1986 Explanatory Memorandum, Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory)…

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 Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council v Williams 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: [2017] ACTCA 46
Decision Date: 23 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory considered a dispute between the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council and Mr Williams concerning the application of tenancy legislation within the Jervis Bay Territory. The central question was whether the *Residential Tenancies Act 1997* (ACT) could operate concurrently with the *Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Act 1986* (Cth) in relation to land granted under the latter Act.

The court was required to determine the proper construction of section 46 of the *Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Act 1986* (Cth). Specifically, it had to ascertain whether this provision permitted the application of ACT residential tenancy laws to premises situated on land held by the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council under the terms of the Commonwealth Act. The interpretation of section 46 was critical to resolving whether the Council was bound by the *Residential Tenancies Act 1997* (ACT) in its dealings with tenants on this land.

The Full Court reasoned that section 46 of the *Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Act 1986* (Cth) did not preclude the operation of the *Residential Tenancies Act 1997* (ACT). The court found that the Commonwealth Act, while establishing a specific framework for Aboriginal land in the Jervis Bay Territory, did not create an exclusive regime that excluded all other applicable laws. Instead, section 46 was interpreted as allowing for the concurrent operation of other relevant legislation, including ACT tenancy laws, unless there was a direct inconsistency. The court concluded that the *Residential Tenancies Act 1997* (ACT) was capable of operating concurrently with the Commonwealth Act without creating such an inconsistency.

The Full Court ordered that the appeal be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [88]

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.