The Nyamal Palyku Proceeding (No 5) [2022] FCA 478

The Nyamal Palyku Proceeding (No 5) [2022] FCA 478

The Court resolved each objection according to the form and basis of the evidence: objections were not upheld where the evidence was confined to Mr Stream's own experience, what was said to him by identified persons, or what was not said in his presence; objections were upheld where the evidence was speculative, unfairly prejudicial because matters had not been put to Mr Stock, or conclusory without a stated basis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Native Title Proceeding / Determined on the Papers; Objections to Evidence in a Responsive Witness Statement
Outcome
Objections to parts of paragraphs 9, 12, 14 and the last sentence of 15(c) were upheld; objections to parts of paragraphs 7, 8 and the second and third sentences of 15(c) were not upheld.
Legal Topics
['objections to Evidence' 'witness Statements' 'speculation' 'unfair Prejudice' 'conclusive Evidence']
['native Title' 'evidence'] ['objections to Evidence' 'witness Statements' 'speculation' 'unfair Prejudice' 'conclusive Evidence']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Native Title Proceeding / Determined on the Papers; Objections to Evidence in a Responsive Witness Statement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether objections to parts of paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 12, 14 and 15(c) of the responsive witness statement of Mr Fred Stream should be upheld.' 'Whether parts of the evidence were speculative, unfairly prejudicial or conclusory, or could be received on a limited basis.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court resolved each objection according to the form and basis of the evidence: objections were not upheld where the evidence was confined to Mr Stream's own experience, what was said to him by identified persons, or what was not said in his presence; objections were upheld where the evidence was speculative, unfairly prejudicial because matters had not been put to Mr Stock, or conclusory without a stated basis.

Court Disposition

Objections to parts of paragraphs 9, 12, 14 and the last sentence of 15(c) were upheld; objections to parts of paragraphs 7, 8 and the second and third sentences of 15(c) were not upheld.

Orders

  • ['The parties update the schedule of objections to the evidence to include notations to reflect these reasons.']