Ellis v Central Land Council [2019] FCAFC 1

Ellis v Central Land Council [2019] FCAFC 1

The appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed. The Full Court held that the Central Land Council Committee lawfully attained satisfaction as required by s 19(5)(a) of the ALR Act based on the information and expertise available; procedural fairness was not denied; deficiencies alleged did not invalidate the process; and non-compliance with common seal requirements rendered the grant instruments invalid, but this did not affect the direction given under s 19(5) nor establish reviewable error. The Court deemed it unnecessary to determine conclusively whether s 19(6) operated to preserve validity in the event of other defects or whether equitable interests were granted.

Parties
First Appellant, First Cross Respondent: Marie Elena Ellis; Second Appellant, Second Cross Respondent: Roseanne Philomena Ellis; Third Appellant, Third Cross Respondent: Imwernkwernhe Community Limited (ACN 161 185 100); First Respondent, First Cross Appellant: Central Land Council; Second Respondent, Fourth Cross Respondent: Northern Territory of Australia; Third Respondent, Fifth Cross Respondent: MacDonnell Regional Council; Fourth Respondent, Sixth Cross Respondent: Central Australian Aboriginal Congress Aboriginal Corporation; Fifth Respondent, Second Cross Appellant: Amoonguna Aboriginal Land Trust; Sixth Respondent, Seventh Cross Respondent: Indigenous Essential Services Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment of Full Court Following Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Statutory Construction, Decision Making Under Aboriginal Land Rights (northern Territory) Act 1976 (cth), Land Trusts and Land Councils, Common Seal Execution Requirements, Equitable Interests, Legal Unreasonableness
Administrative Law Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Law Procedural Fairness Statutory Construction Decision Making Under Aboriginal Land Rights (northern Territory) Act 1976 (cth) Land Trusts and Land Councils Common Seal Execution Requirements Equitable Interests +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 45 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marie Elena Ellis

First Appellant, First Cross Respondent

Roseanne Philomena Ellis

Second Appellant, Second Cross Respondent

Imwernkwernhe Community Limited (ACN 161 185 100)

Third Appellant, Third Cross Respondent

Central Land Council

First Respondent, First Cross Appellant

Northern Territory of Australia

Second Respondent, Fourth Cross Respondent

MacDonnell Regional Council

Third Respondent, Fifth Cross Respondent

Central Australian Aboriginal Congress Aboriginal Corporation

Fourth Respondent, Sixth Cross Respondent

Amoonguna Aboriginal Land Trust

Fifth Respondent, Second Cross Appellant

Indigenous Essential Services Pty Ltd

Sixth Respondent, Seventh Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment of Full Court Following Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Central Land Council Committee lawfully reached satisfaction under s 19(5)(a) ALR Act that traditional Aboriginal owners understood and consented as a group to grant of leases and licences.
  2. 2 Whether failure to await a commissioned anthropological report amounted to legal unreasonableness.
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness was denied to appellants by the Committee's process.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed. The Full Court held that the Central Land Council Committee lawfully attained satisfaction as required by s 19(5)(a) of the ALR Act based on the information and expertise available; procedural fairness was not denied; deficiencies alleged did not invalidate the process; and non-compliance with common seal requirements rendered the grant instruments invalid, but this did not affect the direction given under s 19(5) nor establish reviewable error. The Court deemed it unnecessary to determine conclusively whether s 19(6) operated to preserve validity in the event of other defects or whether equitable interests were granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The cross-appeal be dismissed.