Keating v Native Title Registrar [2023] FCA 137

Keating v Native Title Registrar [2023] FCA 137

Although an extension of time was granted, the application for review failed because the Wallara Claim did not satisfy mandatory registration requirements. The Court was not satisfied that the applicant was authorised by all members of the native title claim group, the claim appeared to concern a sub-group rather than the whole native title claim group, the map and boundary materials did not describe the claim area with reasonable certainty, and the evidence did not adequately identify traditional laws and customs, how they gave rise to native title rights and interests, or their continued observance so as to satisfy ss 190B(5), 190B(6) and 190B(7).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of Decision Refusing Registration of Native Title Determination Application / Review Under S 190 F of the Native Title Act 1993 (cth), With Interlocutory Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['registration of Native Title Claims' 'review of Native Title Registrar Decision' 'extension of Time' 'authorisation of Native Title Applicant' 'registration Test Under Ss 190 B and 190 C of the Native Title Act 1993 (cth)']
['native Title' 'administrative Law'] ['registration of Native Title Claims' 'review of Native Title Registrar Decision' 'extension of Time' 'authorisation of Native Title Applicant' 'registration Test Under Ss 190 B and 190 C of the Native Title Act 1993 (cth)']

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 Review of Decision Refusing Registration of Native Title Determination Application / Review Under S 190 F of the Native Title Act 1993 (cth), With Interlocutory Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an extension of time should be granted for the applicant to file the substantive application for review.' 'Whether the Wallara Claim satisfied the registration requirements in ss 190B and 190C of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).' 'Whether the claim area was described with reasonable certainty for the purposes of s 190B(2).' 'Whether there was a sufficient factual basis for asserted native title rights and interests under s 190B(5).' 'Whether at least some claimed native title rights and interests could prima facie be established under s 190B(6).' 'Whether traditional physical connection was established under s 190B(7).' 'Whether the overlap with registered claims prevented satisfaction of s 190C(3).' 'Whether the applicant was authorised by all other persons in the native title claim group under ss 190C(4) and 190C(4AA).']

Ratio Decidendi

Although an extension of time was granted, the application for review failed because the Wallara Claim did not satisfy mandatory registration requirements. The Court was not satisfied that the applicant was authorised by all members of the native title claim group, the claim appeared to concern a sub-group rather than the whole native title claim group, the map and boundary materials did not describe the claim area with reasonable certainty, and the evidence did not adequately identify traditional laws and customs, how they gave rise to native title rights and interests, or their continued observance so as to satisfy ss 190B(5), 190B(6) and 190B(7).

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's application filed 21 April 2022 be dismissed."]