Noble v Murgha [2005] FCAFC 211
The Court held that it was open to the primary judge to find that, at the meeting, the claim group agreed to refer the issue to the elders and abide by their decision. The unanimous acceptance of the elders’ decision by the meeting satisfied s 251B(b), and no separate antecedent decision-making process needed to be established. Therefore, the requirements for removal under s 66B were met, and no error was shown by the primary judge.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 29 April 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal / Decision on Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- ['authorisation of Applicant' 'removal of Applicant' 'decision Making Under Native Title Act']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Decision on Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether removal of applicant was authorised under s 251B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)' 'Whether decision to remove applicant complied with a process of decision-making agreed to and adopted by the claim group']
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that it was open to the primary judge to find that, at the meeting, the claim group agreed to refer the issue to the elders and abide by their decision. The unanimous acceptance of the elders’ decision by the meeting satisfied s 251B(b), and no separate antecedent decision-making process needed to be established. Therefore, the requirements for removal under s 66B were met, and no error was shown by the primary judge.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal refused
Orders
- ['Leave to appeal from the judgment of Dowsett J, given on 31 March 2005, is refused.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment