Jango v Northern Territory of Australia (No 3) [2004] FCA 1029

Jango v Northern Territory of Australia (No 3) [2004] FCA 1029

An adjournment was granted because the applicants had not prepared expert reports in compliance with the Evidence Act, requiring substantial remedial work; the respondents did not oppose the adjournment, and it was necessary to ensure a fair trial and admissible expert evidence.

Parties
Applicant: Johnny Jango and Others; First Respondent: Northern Territory of Australia; Second Respondent: GPT Management Limited; Third Respondent: Commonwealth of Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Compensation Claim Under Native Title Act / Application for Adjournment; Interlocutory Directions
Outcome
Adjournment granted; procedural directions issued.
Legal Topics
Adjournment, Evidence Admissibility, Expert Evidence, Compensation Under Native Title Act
Native Title Practice and Procedure Adjournment Evidence Admissibility Expert Evidence Compensation Under Native Title Act

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johnny Jango and Others

Applicant

Northern Territory of Australia

First Respondent

GPT Management Limited

Second Respondent

Commonwealth of Australia

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Compensation Claim Under Native Title Act / Application for Adjournment; Interlocutory Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should an adjournment be granted to allow the applicants to address evidentiary objections to their expert reports?
  2. 2 What directions should be made concerning expert evidence and the conduct of the case?

Ratio Decidendi

An adjournment was granted because the applicants had not prepared expert reports in compliance with the Evidence Act, requiring substantial remedial work; the respondents did not oppose the adjournment, and it was necessary to ensure a fair trial and admissible expert evidence.

Court Disposition

Adjournment granted; procedural directions issued.

Orders

  • Applicants have leave to file and serve supplementary reports addressing objections by 17 September 2004.
  • Supplementary reports are limited to portions objected to and accepted as inadmissible.