FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Margarula v Northern Territory of Australia [2009] FCA 290
CORRIGENDUM
NTD 6027 of 1998
REEVES J
5 MARCH 2009 (CORRIGENDUM 22 April 2009)
DARWIN
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY |
NTD 6027 of 1998 |
|
YVONNE MARGARULA Applicant
|
|
|
AND: |
NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA First Respondent
NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL Second Respondent
GUNDJEHMI ABORIGINAL CORPORATION Third Respondent
ENERGY RESOURCES OF AUSTRALIA Fourth Respondent
JABIRU TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Fifth Respondent
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL PARKS Sixth Respondent
TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED Seventh Respondent
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Eighth Respondent
|
|
JUDGE: |
|
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
5 MARCH 2009 (CORRIGENDUM 22 APRIL 2009) |
|
WHERE MADE: |
DARWIN |
CORRIGENDUM
- On the front page, in the catchwords – fourth line – insert the word ‘advice’ and ‘a’ to read:
… decide an issue influenced by previous advice given in a lawyer and client relationship.
2. On page 10, paragraph 27 - change position of word ‘Barton’ to read:
However, in a more recent decision of Parramatta Design and Development Pty Ltd v Concrete Pty Ltd (‘Parramatta Design’) (2005) 144 FCR 264, a differently constituted Full Court of this Court appeared to follow Barton, at least in some respects.
3. On page 12, paragraph 32 – in the first line – delete the words ‘as to’ to read:
I will return to Centro when I come to consider the question: what, if any, order should be made?
4. On page 20, paragraph 54 – delete the words ‘this combination’ and add ‘these two combinations’ to read:
As I perceive my task, it is to determine which of these two combinations of factors is likely to be more persuasive to the fair minded lay observer.
|
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the corrigendum to the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Reeves. |
Associate:
Dated: 22 April 2009
