Santo v David [2010] FCA 42

Santo v David [2010] FCA 42

The Applicants do not have standing to enforce native title rights or seek relief in respect of land held in trust by a prescribed body corporate following a native title determination; only the prescribed body corporate has standing to vindicate or enforce such rights under the Native Title Act and associated Regulations.

Parties
First Applicant: Pancho Santo; Second Applicant: Cyril Santo; Respondent: Annie David
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Native Title, Standing, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Prescribed Body Corporate, Trust of Native Title Rights

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pancho Santo

First Applicant

Cyril Santo

Second Applicant

Annie David

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Do the Applicants have standing to seek relief in respect of native title rights held in trust by a prescribed body corporate?
  2. 2 Are the Applicants proper parties for enforcement of native title rights?
  3. 3 Does the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) leave any residual common law rights for individual native title holders in litigation to enforce communal native title rights?

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicants do not have standing to enforce native title rights or seek relief in respect of land held in trust by a prescribed body corporate following a native title determination; only the prescribed body corporate has standing to vindicate or enforce such rights under the Native Title Act and associated Regulations.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.