Little v Wajarri Yamaji Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC [2024] FCA 778

Little v Wajarri Yamaji Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC [2024] FCA 778

The appeal is summarily dismissed because no coherent basis is disclosed to suggest that the Tribunal made any error of law in finding the appellants did not negotiate in good faith or in dismissing their application; as required by s 169 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), an appeal lies only on a question of law, and none is raised.

Parties
First Appellant: Terrence Harold Little; Second Appellant: Lucas Menzel; First Respondent: Wajarri Yamaji Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC; Second Respondent: State of Western Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Application for Summary Dismissal
Outcome
The proceeding is dismissed.
Legal Topics
Appeal on Question of Law, Summary Dismissal, Good Faith Negotiation, Federal Court Procedure
Native Title Appeal on Question of Law Summary Dismissal Good Faith Negotiation Federal Court Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terrence Harold Little

First Appellant

Lucas Menzel

Second Appellant

Wajarri Yamaji Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC

First Respondent

State of Western Australia

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Application for Summary Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appeal raises a question of law under s 169 Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether summary dismissal should be granted under s 31A Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is summarily dismissed because no coherent basis is disclosed to suggest that the Tribunal made any error of law in finding the appellants did not negotiate in good faith or in dismissing their application; as required by s 169 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), an appeal lies only on a question of law, and none is raised.

Court Disposition

The proceeding is dismissed.

Orders

  • The appellants were permitted to deliver oral submissions by way of video link pursuant to s 47B of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).
  • The proceeding is dismissed pursuant to s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).