Bolton on behalf of the Southern Noongar Families v State of Western Australia [2002] FCA 1087

Bolton on behalf of the Southern Noongar Families v State of Western Australia [2002] FCA 1087

The scheduled preservation evidence hearing was postponed because the applicants were not yet in a position to be precise about the ambit and location of the proposed preservation evidence, the number of witnesses had expanded, and fair procedural guidelines were required before the evidence could be taken. Further interlocutory proceedings were left in abeyance pending greater precision by the applicants, advancement of compliance with French J's earlier directions, and expedited preparation by the State of tenure information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Native Title Proceedings / Directions Hearing; Reasons for Postponement of Hearing of Preservation Evidence
Outcome
Hearing of preservation evidence postponed; no orders made.
Legal Topics
['preservation Evidence' 'directions Hearing' 'points of Claim' 'land Tenure Information' 'case Management']
['native Title'] ['preservation Evidence' 'directions Hearing' 'points of Claim' 'land Tenure Information' 'case Management']

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

Native Title Proceedings / Directions Hearing; Reasons for Postponement of Hearing of Preservation Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants should file points of claim before the hearing of preservation evidence.' 'Whether the scheduled hearing for taking preservation evidence should be postponed because of uncertainty about the number of witnesses, the ambit of the evidence and arrangements for taking it.' 'Whether land tenure information for the claim areas should be expedited to assist progress of the claims.']

Ratio Decidendi

The scheduled preservation evidence hearing was postponed because the applicants were not yet in a position to be precise about the ambit and location of the proposed preservation evidence, the number of witnesses had expanded, and fair procedural guidelines were required before the evidence could be taken. Further interlocutory proceedings were left in abeyance pending greater precision by the applicants, advancement of compliance with French J's earlier directions, and expedited preparation by the State of tenure information.

Court Disposition

Hearing of preservation evidence postponed; no orders made.

Orders

  • ['No orders made.']