Davidson v Fesl [2005] FCAFC 183

Davidson v Fesl [2005] FCAFC 183

Although aspects of the primary judge's reasoning about the effect of want of initial authorisation were attended with some doubt, leave to appeal was refused because no substantial injustice would result from discontinuance. The claim group definition was constrained and contentious, the authorisation processes were doubtful, and discontinuance allowed a more thorough consideration of the proper native title claim group and proper authorisation for a fresh application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia in a Native Title Determination Proceeding / Full Court Reasons on Application for Leave to Appeal Against Grant of Leave to Discontinue
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['native Title Determination Application' 'authorisation of Applicant' 'native Title Claim Group Definition' 'discontinuance' 'replacement of Applicant Under S 66 B' 'leave to Appeal']
['native Title' 'aboriginal Peoples' 'civil Procedure'] ['native Title Determination Application' 'authorisation of Applicant' 'native Title Claim Group Definition' 'discontinuance' 'replacement of Applicant Under S 66 B' 'leave to Appeal']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia in a Native Title Determination Proceeding / Full Court Reasons on Application for Leave to Appeal Against Grant of Leave to Discontinue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the native title determination application was properly authorised at lodgement under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).' 'Whether want of initial authorisation prevented the application from being a claimant application and affected the availability of s 66B replacement orders.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the order giving leave to discontinue the native title determination application.' 'Whether substantial injustice would result from refusal of leave to appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although aspects of the primary judge's reasoning about the effect of want of initial authorisation were attended with some doubt, leave to appeal was refused because no substantial injustice would result from discontinuance. The claim group definition was constrained and contentious, the authorisation processes were doubtful, and discontinuance allowed a more thorough consideration of the proper native title claim group and proper authorisation for a fresh application.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal against the judgment of Spender J given on 22 February 2005 is dismissed.' 'The parties have leave to make submissions within 14 days on the question of costs and in particular whether any costs order in favour of the respondents should be taxed as one set between all or some of...