Mineralogy Pty Ltd v National Native Title Tribunal [1997] FCA 1404

Mineralogy Pty Ltd v National Native Title Tribunal [1997] FCA 1404

The Tribunal's jurisdiction or authority under s 32(4) was conditioned upon the proposed extension being a future act, but the proposed extension was a future act because it was not shown to be a past act and it validly affected native title to the limited extent of creating a potential temporary and partial inconsistency with the enjoyment or exercise of native title rights. The original exploration licence was not shown to have been invalid or to have extinguished native title. The Tribunal therefore had jurisdiction or authority, and the application for review failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 1997
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) for an Order of Review of a National Native Title Tribunal Decision / Federal Court Judicial Review; Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs payable to the second respondent.
Legal Topics
['right to Negotiate' 'expedited Procedure' 'permissible Future Act' 'past Act' 'exploration Licence Extension' 'jurisdictional Fact' 'racial Discrimination Act Inconsistency' 'extinguishment and Effect on Native Title']
['administrative Law' 'native Title' 'mining Law'] ['right to Negotiate' 'expedited Procedure' 'permissible Future Act' 'past Act' 'exploration Licence Extension' 'jurisdictional Fact' 'racial Discrimination Act Inconsistency' 'extinguishment and Effect on Native Title']

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 Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) for an Order of Review of a National Native Title Tribunal Decision / Federal Court Judicial Review; Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction or was authorised by the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) to determine the objection under s 32(4).' "Whether it was a condition precedent to the Tribunal's jurisdiction or authority that the proposed extension be a future act to which Subdivision B applies." 'Whether the proposed extension was not a future act because it was a past act as defined in s 228(4) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).' 'Whether the proposed extension was not a future act because it did not affect native title within the meaning of s 227 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).' 'Whether the original grant of the exploration licence extinguished any inconsistent native title rights so that a later extension would not affect native title.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal's jurisdiction or authority under s 32(4) was conditioned upon the proposed extension being a future act, but the proposed extension was a future act because it was not shown to be a past act and it validly affected native title to the limited extent of creating a potential temporary and partial inconsistency with the enjoyment or exercise of native title rights. The original exploration licence was not shown to have been invalid or to have extinguished native title. The Tribunal therefore had jurisdiction or authority, and the application for review failed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs payable to the second respondent.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the second respondent's costs."]