Ward v Registrar, National Native Title Tribunal [1999] FCA 1732

Ward v Registrar, National Native Title Tribunal [1999] FCA 1732

The delegate made no reviewable error because it was open to her to be unsatisfied that the claim group was described with sufficient clarity under s 190B(3)(b), particularly given uncertainty about descent, traditional ownership, traditionally recognised inclusion criteria and the inability to determine whether objecting deponents were members of the group. It was also open to her to be unsatisfied that all members had authorised the applicants under ss 190C(4) and (5), because eleven deponents swore they were members of the group and had not authorised the application, and the applicants provided no affidavit evidence to the contrary.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for an Order of Review of the Native Title Registrar's Decision Refusing Registration of a Native Title Claim / Reasons for Judgment on the Review Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['registration of Native Title Claim' 'identification of Native Title Claim Group' 'authorisation of Applicants by Native Title Claim Group' 'judicial Review of Native Title Registrar Decision']
['native Title' 'administrative Law'] ['registration of Native Title Claim' 'identification of Native Title Claim Group' 'authorisation of Applicants by Native Title Claim Group' 'judicial Review of Native Title Registrar Decision']

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 an Order of Review of the Native Title Registrar's Decision Refusing Registration of a Native Title Claim / Reasons for Judgment on the Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Registrar's delegate erred in not being satisfied that the persons in the native title claim group were described sufficiently clearly so that it could be ascertained whether any particular person was in that group." "Whether the Registrar's delegate erred in not being satisfied that the applicants were authorised by all members of the native title claim group to make and deal with the application." 'Whether the decision involved error of law, improper exercise of power, failure to take relevant considerations into account, taking irrelevant considerations into account, or failure to observe procedures required by law.']

Ratio Decidendi

The delegate made no reviewable error because it was open to her to be unsatisfied that the claim group was described with sufficient clarity under s 190B(3)(b), particularly given uncertainty about descent, traditional ownership, traditionally recognised inclusion criteria and the inability to determine whether objecting deponents were members of the group. It was also open to her to be unsatisfied that all members had authorised the applicants under ss 190C(4) and (5), because eleven deponents swore they were members of the group and had not authorised the application, and the applicants provided no affidavit evidence to the contrary.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' 'The applicants pay the costs of the second and third respondents.']