Branfield v Wharton [2004] FCAFC 138

Branfield v Wharton [2004] FCAFC 138

The amendments to the native title claim did not effect a substantive change to the composition of the claimant group, but rather further particularised the group previously described in general terms. As such, the old section 61 continued to govern, and there was no error in the primary judge's decision to dismiss the strike out motion. Thus, there was no utility in granting leave to appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Appellate (application for Leave to Appeal)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; extension of time granted.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'strike Out Application' 'composition of Native Title Claim Group' 'application of Amended Legislation']
['native Title Law' 'administrative Law'] ['leave to Appeal' 'strike Out Application' 'composition of Native Title Claim Group' 'application of Amended Legislation']

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 Leave to Appeal / Appellate (application for Leave to Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether amendments to a native title application constituted a change in the composition of the claimants, triggering the application of new statutory provisions.' 'Whether the principle from Quall v Risk applies when amendments particularise but do not alter the substance of the claim group.']

Ratio Decidendi

The amendments to the native title claim did not effect a substantive change to the composition of the claimant group, but rather further particularised the group previously described in general terms. As such, the old section 61 continued to govern, and there was no error in the primary judge's decision to dismiss the strike out motion. Thus, there was no utility in granting leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; extension of time granted.

Orders

  • ['Time for commencement of application for leave to appeal is extended to permit the hearing and determination of the application.' 'Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.']