Top End (Default PBC/CLA) Aboriginal Corporation v Northern Territory of Australia [2025] FCA 22

Top End (Default PBC/CLA) Aboriginal Corporation v Northern Territory of Australia [2025] FCA 22

The Tribunal erred in law by requiring an 'explanation' of the particular significance of sites of asserted significance to native title holders for the purposes of s 237(b) Native Title Act 1993 (Cth); such a statutory gloss is not warranted. The Tribunal also did not commit legal error by generally referring to the 'presumption of regularity' in assessing likely interference; the use of that expression in these reasons was factual, not prescriptive.

Parties
Applicant: Top End (Default PBC/CLA) Aboriginal Corporation; First Respondent: Northern Territory of Australia; Second Respondent (ntd8/2024): Baudin Resources Pty Ltd; Second Respondent (ntd10/2024): Daly Tenements Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: National Native Title Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal on a Question of Law From the National Native Title Tribunal / Judgment/orders
Outcome
Appeals allowed in both matters (NTD 8 of 2024 and NTD 10 of 2024)
Legal Topics
Future Acts, Expedited Procedure, Indigenous Land Rights, Statutory Appeal
Administrative Law Native Title Future Acts Expedited Procedure Indigenous Land Rights Statutory Appeal

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 5 Authorities cited 30 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Top End (Default PBC/CLA) Aboriginal Corporation

Applicant

Northern Territory of Australia

First Respondent

Baudin Resources Pty Ltd

Second Respondent (ntd8/2024)

Daly Tenements Pty Ltd

Second Respondent (ntd10/2024)

National Native Title Tribunal

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal on a Question of Law From the National Native Title Tribunal / Judgment/orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in law by requiring an 'explanation' of the particular significance of sites for the purposes of s 237(b) Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred by applying a 'presumption of regularity' regarding compliance with regulatory regimes for site protection
  3. 3 Whether the findings as to 'particular significance' lacked evidential support

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in law by requiring an 'explanation' of the particular significance of sites of asserted significance to native title holders for the purposes of s 237(b) Native Title Act 1993 (Cth); such a statutory gloss is not warranted. The Tribunal also did not commit legal error by generally referring to the 'presumption of regularity' in assessing likely interference; the use of that expression in these reasons was factual, not prescriptive.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in both matters (NTD 8 of 2024 and NTD 10 of 2024)

Orders

  • The appeal be allowed (NTD 8 of 2024).
  • The determination of the third respondent in relation to applications DO2022/0004-0005 dated 2 May 2024 be set aside.