FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Northern Land Council v Quall (No 2) [2019] FCAFC 101
Appeal from: | |
File number: | NTD 30 of 2018 |
Judges: | GRIFFITHS, MORTIMER AND WHITE JJ |
Date of judgment: | |
Cases cited: | |
Date of last submissions: | 18 June 2019 |
Registry: | Northern Territory |
Division: | General Division |
National Practice Area: | Native Title |
Category: | No catchwords |
Number of paragraphs: | |
Solicitor for the Appellants: | Legal Branch, Northern Land Council |
Counsel for the Respondents: | Mr A Tokley SC with Mr P McIntyre |
Solicitor for the Respondents: | Robert Welfare & Associates |
Counsel for the Intervener | Ms S Brownhill SC with Mr L Peattie |
Solicitor for the Intervener | Solicitor for the Northern Territory |
ORDERS
First Appellant JOE MORRISON AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE NORTHERN LAND COUNCIL Second Appellant | ||
AND: | First Respondent ERIC FEJO Second Respondent | |
THE COURT DECLARES THAT:
1. The first appellant did not have power to delegate its certification functions under s 203BE(1)(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) to its Chief Executive Officer.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appellants’ interlocutory application dated 27 September 2018 be dismissed.
2. The appeal be dismissed.
3. The cross-appeal be allowed.
4. The appellants are to pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the appeal and the cross-appeal, as agreed or assessed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
THE COURT:
1 On 20 May 2019, the Court published its reasons for judgment in this matter (see Northern Land Council v Quall [2019] FCAFC 77). The Court indicated that the appeal should be dismissed and the cross-appeal allowed. It also indicated that the appellants’ interlocutory application dated 27 September 2018 should be dismissed. It stated at [140] that a declaratory order should be made along the lines of those sought in the notice of cross-appeal.
2 The Court directed that the parties should seek to agree the terms of final orders which gave effect to the Court’s reasons for judgment, as well as on costs. An order was made that if the parties were unable to agree the terms of final orders, each should file and serve an outline of written submissions in support of their individual position and that the terms of the final orders would then be determined on the papers and without a further oral hearing.
3 By an email dated 17 June 2019, the solicitor for the respondents forwarded a minute of proposed final orders which were said to be consented to by the respondents and the Northern Territory.
4 The respondents’ solicitor informed the Court that the solicitor for the appellants had advised that the Northern Land Council neither consented to the making of the orders in the proposed form, nor did it propose to make a submission in opposition to them.
5 The terms of the proposed declaratory order are narrower than what is expressed at [136] of the joint reasons for judgment of Griffiths and White JJ (with whom Mortimer J generally agreed subject to the emphasis given by her Honour to particular matters in her separate reasons for judgment). The Court confirms the views expressed at [136], but it is prepared to make a declaratory order in substantially similar terms to those proposed by the respondents and the Northern Territory.
6 Subject to that qualification, final orders will otherwise be made as proposed by the respondents and the Northern Territory.
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Griffiths, Mortimer and White. |
Associate:
