Yunupingu on behalf of the Gumatj Clan or Estate Group v Commonwealth of Australia

The case of Yunupingu on behalf of the Gumatj Clan or Estate Group v Commonwealth of Australia concerns a claim for compensation under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA) by the Gumatj Clan or Estate Group against the Commonwealth of Australia. The applicants argue that various grants and legislative acts between 1911 and 1978 in the Northern Territory extinguished their non-exclusive native title rights without providing just terms, as required by section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution. The Commonwealth contends that the applicant’s claims should fail on multiple grounds, including that the grants did not extinguish native title rights and that the just terms requirement does not apply to laws enacted pursuant to section 122 of the Constitution.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the grants and legislative acts in question extinguished the applicants' non-exclusive native title rights and, if so, whether they provided just terms as required by section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution. The court also had to determine whether the just terms requirement applies to laws enacted pursuant to section 122 and whether native title rights are inherently defeasible.

The court concluded that the Mission Lease did not extinguish the claimants’ non-exclusive native title rights, as it did not confer a right of exclusive possession. The court found that the High Court’s decision in Wurridjal v Commonwealth [2009] HCA 2; 237 CLR 309 overruled the earlier decision in Teori Tau v Commonwealth [1969] HCA 62; 119 CLR 564, establishing that section 122 of the Constitution is subject to section 51(xxxi). The court also rejected the argument that native title rights are inherently defeasible, finding that they are proprietary in nature and constitute “property” for the purposes of section 51(xxxi). Therefore, a grant or act that extinguishes native title rights and interests is capable of amounting to an acquisition of property within the meaning of section 51(xxxi). The court further found that the reservations in the pastoral leases did not extinguish the claimants’ native title mineral rights.

The court answered the reserved questions as follows: (1) the grant of the Mission Lease did not extinguish the claimants' non-exclusive native title rights, and the just terms requirement applies to laws enacted pursuant to section 122; (2) the reservations in the pastoral leases did not extinguish the claimants' native title mineral rights; and (3) the special mineral leases did not extinguish the claimants' non-exclusive native title rights. Consequently, the court held that the applicant’s claims should not fail on the grounds presented by the Commonwealth.

The final orders were that the questions reserved for consideration be answered as specified, and each party was to file a short written submission on any further orders they contend should be made by the Full Court within 28 days. The proceeding was then to be referred back to a docket judge for case management.