Gudjala People #2 v Native Title Registrar [2007] FCA 1167

Gudjala People #2 v Native Title Registrar [2007] FCA 1167

The application for review was dismissed because, although the claim group was sufficiently identified by descent from the four apical ancestors for s 190B(3), the material did not provide a sufficient factual basis for the requirements of s 190B(5). In particular, it did not demonstrate an association between the whole claim group and the area over the period since sovereignty, did not identify a pre-sovereignty or European-settlement society acknowledging and observing normative laws and customs from which current laws and customs were derived, and did not support continued holding of native title in accordance with traditional laws and customs. Those deficiencies also meant that s...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of a Decision by the Native Title Registrar Not to Accept a Native Title Determination Application for Registration / Final Judgment on Review Under S 190 D(2) of the Native Title Act 1993 (cth)
Outcome
The application was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['registration Test' 'procedural Fairness' 'irrelevant Considerations' 'factual Basis for Native Title Claim' 'identification of Native Title Claim Group' 'traditional Laws and Customs' 'traditional Physical Connection' 'error of Law']
['native Title' 'administrative Law'] ['registration Test' 'procedural Fairness' 'irrelevant Considerations' 'factual Basis for Native Title Claim' 'identification of Native Title Claim Group' 'traditional Laws and Customs' 'traditional Physical Connection' 'error of Law']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Review of a Decision by the Native Title Registrar Not to Accept a Native Title Determination Application for Registration / Final Judgment on Review Under S 190 D(2) of the Native Title Act 1993 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant was misled or could rely on the Delegate's earlier registration decision in relation to the Core Country claim" 'Whether the Delegate denied procedural fairness by refusing registration without following or explaining departure from the earlier decision' 'Whether the Delegate took irrelevant material into account or failed to take relevant material into account' 'Whether the native title claim group was sufficiently identified for s 190B(3) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)' 'Whether the factual basis was sufficient to support the assertions required by s 190B(5) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)' 'Whether at least some claimed native title rights and interests could prima facie be established under s 190B(6) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)' 'Whether at least one member of the claim group had a traditional physical connection for s 190B(7) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for review was dismissed because, although the claim group was sufficiently identified by descent from the four apical ancestors for s 190B(3), the material did not provide a sufficient factual basis for the requirements of s 190B(5). In particular, it did not demonstrate an association between the whole claim group and the area over the period since sovereignty, did not identify a pre-sovereignty or European-settlement society acknowledging and observing normative laws and customs from which current laws and customs were derived, and did not support continued holding of native title in accordance with traditional laws and customs. Those deficiencies also meant that s...

Court Disposition

The application was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.']