Williams v Director General National Parks and Wildlife Service & Ors [2002] NSWLEC 154

Williams v Director General National Parks and Wildlife Service & Ors [2002] NSWLEC 154

The permit was not shown to be invalid. It was issued by an officer holding lawful delegated authority; the Applicant was not denied procedural fairness; the alleged misleading conduct, bias, irrelevant considerations, failure to consider relevant matters and factual mistake were not established; the Aboriginal consultation was sufficiently thorough for the Service to act on it; the permit authorised only acts within ss 86 and 87 and did not amount to a s 90 consent to destroy or damage relics; the relevant relics were prima facie Crown property under s 83; and the land description, certainty, Racial Discrimination Act and Aboriginal Land Council expectation grounds failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Application for Declarations and Injunctions Challenging Validity of a Permit Issued Under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, S 87 / Final Determination of Alleged Invalidity of the Permit After Interlocutory Relief Had Been Dismissed
Outcome
Application dismissed; permit not shown to be invalid.
Legal Topics
['validity of Permit to Collect Relics' 'procedural Fairness' 'delegated Authority' 'apprehended Bias' 'relevant and Irrelevant Considerations' 'aboriginal Community Consultation' 'racial Discrimination Act Challenge' 'crown Property in Relics']
['environmental Law' 'administrative Law' 'aboriginal Cultural Heritage' 'anti Discrimination Law'] ['validity of Permit to Collect Relics' 'procedural Fairness' 'delegated Authority' 'apprehended Bias' 'relevant and Irrelevant Considerations' 'aboriginal Community Consultation' 'racial Discrimination Act Challenge' 'crown Property in Relics']

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

Class 4 Application for Declarations and Injunctions Challenging Validity of a Permit Issued Under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, S 87 / Final Determination of Alleged Invalidity of the Permit After Interlocutory Relief Had Been Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the permit was invalid because it was issued by a person other than the person nominated by the Director-General to sign off the permit.' 'Whether the Applicant was denied procedural fairness or misled in relation to consultation and the permit application.' 'Whether the decision to issue the permit was affected by bias, irrelevant considerations, failure to consider relevant material, or material mistake of fact about Aboriginal consultation.' 'Whether the permit exceeded the legitimate scope and purpose of National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, s 87 by effectively authorising exploratory drilling or damage to relics requiring consent under s 90.' 'Whether the permit was affected by error concerning Crown ownership of relics, land description, uncertainty, or inconsistency with the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act 1975.']

Ratio Decidendi

The permit was not shown to be invalid. It was issued by an officer holding lawful delegated authority; the Applicant was not denied procedural fairness; the alleged misleading conduct, bias, irrelevant considerations, failure to consider relevant matters and factual mistake were not established; the Aboriginal consultation was sufficiently thorough for the Service to act on it; the permit authorised only acts within ss 86 and 87 and did not amount to a s 90 consent to destroy or damage relics; the relevant relics were prima facie Crown property under s 83; and the land description, certainty, Racial Discrimination Act and Aboriginal Land Council expectation grounds failed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; permit not shown to be invalid.

Orders

  • ['Application be dismissed.' 'Exhibits be returned.' 'Question of costs be reserved.']