Risk v Northern Territory of Australia [2002] HCA 23
The seabed of bays and gulfs within the limits of the Northern Territory is not 'land' for the purposes of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) and thus cannot be the subject of a claim under that Act. The Act, properly construed by reference to its text, structure, history, and legislative materials, was not intended to confer claimable rights over the seabed or superjacent waters. Statutory references making provision for entry and control over adjoining sea areas would have been superfluous if such areas were claimable land.
- Parties
- Appellant: William Maxwell Risk; First Respondent: The Northern Territory of Australia; Second Respondent: Australia & Anor; Intervener: Northern Territory Seafood Council Inc (Intervener)
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 30 May 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / High Court Appeal From the Federal Court of Australia
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- Aboriginal Land Rights, Definition of Land, Seabed and Territorial Boundaries, Statutory Construction Under Aboriginal Land Rights (northern Territory) Act 1976 (cth)
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
William Maxwell Risk
Appellant
The Northern Territory of Australia
First Respondent
Australia & Anor
Second Respondent
Northern Territory Seafood Council Inc (Intervener)
Intervener
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Appeal From the Federal Court of Australia
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the seabed of bays and gulfs within the limits of the Northern Territory is 'land' for the purposes of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth)
- 2 Whether such seabed can be claimed under the Land Rights Act
Ratio Decidendi
The seabed of bays and gulfs within the limits of the Northern Territory is not 'land' for the purposes of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) and thus cannot be the subject of a claim under that Act. The Act, properly construed by reference to its text, structure, history, and legislative materials, was not intended to confer claimable rights over the seabed or superjacent waters. Statutory references making provision for entry and control over adjoining sea areas would have been superfluous if such areas were claimable land.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment