Murray v Registrar of the National Native Title Tribunal [2003] FCAFC 220

Murray v Registrar of the National Native Title Tribunal [2003] FCAFC 220

Section 24CD of the Native Title Act does not require identification or naming of all persons who claim to hold native title in the area; the native title group as parties to an agreement can consist of any one or more such claimants or Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander bodies, and the appeal challenging this construction fails.

Parties
Appellant: Sonia Marie Murray; First Respondent: Registrar of the National Native Title Tribunal; Second Respondent: Blairgowrie Safe Boat Harbour Limited; Third Respondent: Carolyn Briggs
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Construction of S 24 CD Native Title Act, Indigenous Land Use Agreement Requirements
Native Title Administrative Law Construction of S 24 CD Native Title Act Indigenous Land Use Agreement Requirements

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sonia Marie Murray

Appellant

Registrar of the National Native Title Tribunal

First Respondent

Blairgowrie Safe Boat Harbour Limited

Second Respondent

Carolyn Briggs

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does s 24CD of the Native Title Act require all persons who claim to hold native title in the area to be parties to the Indigenous Land Use Agreement?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 24CD of the Native Title Act does not require identification or naming of all persons who claim to hold native title in the area; the native title group as parties to an agreement can consist of any one or more such claimants or Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander bodies, and the appeal challenging this construction fails.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The appellant pay the respondents' costs.