Northern Territory v Mr Griffiths and Lorraine Jones

Last updated

Northern Territory v Mr Griffiths and Lorraine Jones
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
CourtHigh Court of Australia
Full case nameNorthern Territory v Mr A. Griffiths (deceased) and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples [2019] HCA 7
Decided13 March 2019
Citation(s) (2019) HCA 7
Case history
Appealed fromThe Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Susan Kiefel AC, Virginia Bell AC, Stephen Gageler AC, Patrick Keane AC, Geoffrey Nettle AC, Michelle Gordon AC & James Edelman
Australia Northern Territory location map.svg
Red pog.svg
Timber Creek
class=notpageimage|
Location of Timber Creek in the Northern Territory

Northern Territory v Mr A. Griffiths (deceased) and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples [2019] HCA 7 is an Australian native title court case that was heard in the High Court of Australia. [1] This case was an appeal by the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth of Australia of the decision handed down by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Northern Territory of Australia v Griffiths [2017] FCAFC 106. [1] [2] The High Court of Australia ruled to reduce the amount of compensation awarded to the Ngaliwurru People and the Nungali People by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. [3] This compensation had been granted to the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples as a remedy for deeds taken by the Northern Territory Government that were previously established by the judicial system to have extinguished native title. [1] The total amount of compensation awarded was reduced from $2,899,446 to $2,530,350. [4] This compensation had been awarded for the monetary and non-monetary loss, as well as interest, associated with the extinguishment of native title. [1] The decision made by the High Court meant the appeals made by the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth were "allowed in part". [1] The case of Northern Territory v Mr Griffiths and Lorraine Jones has been labelled one of the most significant native title court cases since Mabo v Queensland (No 1) and Mabo v Queensland (No 2). [5] The Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples reside in Timber Creek, Northern Territory. [6] The High Court granted special leave for the appeal on 16 February 2018. [7] The High Court, which is situated in Canberra, had not heard a case in the Northern Territory prior to this. [8]

Contents

Background Information

The Federal Court of Australia ruled in Griffiths v Northern Territory (2006) 165 FCR 300 that the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples bear native title in the town of Timber Creek. [9] The trial judge, Mark Weinberg AO, QC held that these rights were non-exclusive. [10] This ruling was appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court in Griffiths v Northern Territory of Australia (2007) 165 FCR 391. [10] The Full Court held that these rights are exclusive. [9] Judge Mansfield AM, QC ruled in Griffiths v Northern Territory of Australia [2014] FCA 256, which was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, that the Government of the Northern Territory had an obligation to compensate the Ngaliwurru and Nungali People given prior actions taken by the Northern Territory which were found to have extinguished these rights and interests. [9] [11] These acts, which are known as the compensable acts, included the building of public infrastructure and the allocation of development leases in the last two decades of the twentieth century on native land belonging to the people of Timber Creek. [1] [11] These actions took place after the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Commonwealth) took force, a statutory law enacted by the Parliament of Australia. [11]

Griffiths v Northern Territory of Australia (No 3) [2016] FCA 900

This was the first case in which the amount of compensation to be awarded to the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples was established; it was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. [10] The ruling was handed down by Judge Mansfield on 24 August 2016. [10] It was established in Griffiths v Northern Territory of Australia [2014] FCA 256 that the Government of the Northern Territory had a liability to compensate the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples for the extinguishment of previously established native title rights. [11] Alan Griffiths and Lorraine Jones, on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples, lodged an application on 2 August 2011 with the Federal Court of Australia for the payment of native title compensation under the Native Title Act 1993 (Commonwealth). [10] This claim was in relation to fifty-three compensable acts that took place on thirty-nine lots and four public roads. [1] Compensation was, however, only awarded for thirty-one of the fifty-three compensable acts. [12]

Ruling handed down by the Federal Court of Australia

The Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples were initially awarded $3,300,661 in compensation for the extinguishment of their land by Judge Mansfield in Griffiths v Northern Territory of Australia (No 3) [2016] FCA 900. [10] The date of judgement was 24 August 2016. [10] $512,400 was awarded for the monetary amount owing for the extinguishment of native title, $1,488,261 was for interest on the sum of $512,400 and the remaining $1,300,000 was awarded for intangible cultural and spiritual loss. [10] Judge Mansfield derived the total compensation of $3,300,661 from an assessment that the compensation amount payable should be equal to "80% of [the] market value of freehold estates in the land the subject of the compensable acts". [1] [10] Judge Mansfield held that the traditional method for determining the financial value of a party's interests in land as "established in Spencer v Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418; [1907] HCA 82" was not suitable given "the only purchaser could be the Northern Territory or the Commonwealth". [12] Any Ngaliwurru and Nungali persons who belong to the Maiyalaniwung, Yanturi, Makalamayi, Wantawul or Wunjaiyi tribes of the Timber Creek area have a right to a share in the compensation amount awarded. [10]

Northern Territory of Australia v Griffiths [2017] FCAFC 106

The Northern Territory of Australia and the Commonwealth of Australia appealed the ruling handed down by Judge Mansfield in Griffiths v Northern Territory of Australia (No 3) [2016] FCA 900. [13] The appeal case is known as Northern Territory of Australia v Griffiths [2017] FCAFC 106 and it was heard by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. [13] The Northern Territory of Australia argued in its appeal that it was incorrect for Judge Mansfield to have established that the monetary value of the native title rights was equivalent to eighty percent of the value of the land in question, on the basis that the legal system should not "treat non-exclusive native title as valued in the same way as if those rights were held by a non-Indigenous person". [10] [12] It was the legal contention of the Northern Territory that this calculation was incorrect because it took into account the racial identity of the person to which the land rights belong, rather than the nature of ownership of said land. [12] Given this, the Northern Territory of Australia contended that the compensation payable to the residents of Timber Creek could not be equal to eighty percent of the value of the land. [12] The Northern Territory submitted that Judge Mansfield should have ruled to the effect that the monetary value of the extinguished native title rights owing to the residents of Timber Creek was the usage value and the negotiation value of the land upon which compensable acts attributable to the Northern Territory Government took place. [14] The Northern Territory argued that Judge Mansfield was incorrect to dismiss the professional testimony of Mr Wayne Lonergan who supported the Northern Territory's legal argument that the liability for compensation should be no more than fifty percent of the financial worth of the land. [14] The Commonwealth of Australia - in its appeal - also contended that the financial value of the extinguished native title rights and interests owing to the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples was equal to fifty percent of the value of the land. [14] It was the contention of the Claim Group (the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples of Timber Creek) that the value of their impaired native title rights was equal to 100% of the freehold value of the land in question. [12]

Ruling handed down by the Full Court of the Federal Court

The Full Court of the Federal Court found that the trial judge made errors in deriving the compensation amount to the effect of overvaluing the native title rights. [12] The Full Court of the Federal Court on appeal awarded the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples compensation calculated as 65% of the market value of the land in question. [13] The outcome of this decision was that the total amount of compensation awarded to the people of Timber Creek was reduced from $3,300,661 to $2,899,446. [15] The amount of compensation awarded for financial loss was decreased from $512,400 to $416,325 and the amount of interest was then calculated with respect to the new amount of financial loss compensation. [1] The $1,300,000 allowance for cultural and spiritual loss remain unchanged. [1] This case was heard by Anthony North QC, Michael Barker QC and Debra Mortimer. [12]

Ruling by the High Court of Australia

Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Susan Kiefel AC Susan Kiefel 2011.jpg
Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Susan Kiefel AC

Northern Territory v Alan Griffiths and Lorraine Jones has been considered a "landmark" native title case. [16] This is because the clauses contained within the Native Title Act 1993 (Commonwealth) pertaining to the determination of compensation payable due to the extinguishment of native title have never been heard before in the High Court. [5] This case will therefore establish a precedent for future native title compensation cases heard in the High Court. [6] It has been stated that the precedent set in this case will give rise to the payment of significant amounts of money in related future cases where native title rights and interests have been found to be extinguished or impaired by acts attributable to external parties. [8] The reduction in compensation awarded to the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples was the result of the High Court's decision that the amount of compensation payable for the financial loss attributable to the extinguishment of native title rights is equivalent to fifty percent of the value of the land. [1] This represents a reduction of fifteen percent from the sixty-five percent established by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Northern Territory of Australia v Griffiths [2017] FCAFC 106. The Northern Territory of Australia, not the Commonwealth of Australia - is the party that has been ordered by the High Court to pay the compensation amount awarded to the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples. [8] This is because Northern Territory was the party responsible for all the compensable acts recognised by the judicial system as having taken place in the Timber Creek area. [1] The High Court of Australia varied the ruling made by the Full Court of the Federal Court in Griffiths v Northern Territory of Australia (2007) 165 FCR 391 such that the native title rights and interests borne by the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples in the Timber Creek area are non-exclusive. [1] The High Court reached this decision having considered that the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples did not have the capacity to stop people from gaining entry to the land the subject of their native title rights and interests; the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples did not have the ability to grant or deny people the right to gain access to their land. [8] The determination that the native title rights and interests of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples in the Timber Creek area are non-exclusive was the reason why the High Court modified the calculation of the monetary amount of compensation payable from sixty-five percent of the worth of the land the subject of the native title rights and interests to fifty percent. [1]

There were three legal matters put forth to the High Court in the case of Northern Territory v Mr A. Griffiths (deceased) and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples [2019] HCA. [1] In Decision One, the Northern Territory of Australia was the appellant and Mr A. Griffiths (deceased) and Lorraine Jones were the respondent. [1] In Decision Two, the Commonwealth of Australia was the appellant and Mr. A Griffiths (deceased) and Lorraine Jones were the respondent. [1] In Decision Three, Mr. A Griffiths (deceased) and Lorraine Jones were the appellant and the Northern Territory of Australia and ANOR were the respondent. [1] The appeals put forth by the Northern Territory and by the Commonwealth of Australia were held in part by the High Court. [17] This was the decision that meant the compensation awarded to the Ngaliwurru and Nungali People's by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia was reduced. [1] This was achieved by the High Court overturning Order 2 made by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in the case of Northern Territory of Australia v Griffiths [2017] FCAFC 106. [17] The issues raised by the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples in Decision Three were thrown out by the High Court and the implication of this is that the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples are legally responsible for paying their legal representation. [1]

Bibliography and reference list

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 "Northern Territory v Mr A. Griffiths (deceased) and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples [2019] HCA 7" . Retrieved 26 April 2019.
  2. ↑ Clark, Martin (20 March 2019). "Northern Territory v Griffiths (Deceased) and Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples". Melbourne Law School. Retrieved 26 April 2019.
  3. ↑ Allens Linklaters (14 March 2019). "Client Update: High Court Delivers Historic Ruling on Native Title Compensation". Allens Linklaters. Retrieved 25 April 2019.
  4. ↑ Northern Land Council (13 March 2019). "NLC Welcomes High Court Judgement of Native Title Compensation at Timber Creek" . Retrieved 24 April 2019.
  5. 1 2 James, Felicity (5 September 2018). "Timber Creek Native Title Compensation Claim Brings High Court to NT for First Time". ABC News. Retrieved 26 April 2019.
  6. 1 2 James, Felicity (13 March 2019). "High Court Awards Timber Creek Native Title Holders $2.5m, Partly for 'Spiritual Harm'". ABC News. Retrieved 26 April 2019.
  7. ↑ "Commonwealth of Australia v Alan Griffiths and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples [2018] HCATrans 28" . Retrieved 25 April 2019.
  8. 1 2 3 4 Whitbourn, Michaela (13 March 2019). "High Court Paves Way for 'Billions' in Native Title Compensation". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 26 May 2019.
  9. 1 2 3 Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. "Griffiths v Northern Territory of Australia [2014] FCA 256". Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. Retrieved 23 April 2019.
  10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 "Griffiths v Northern Territory of Australia (No 3) [2016] FCA 900" (PDF).
  11. 1 2 3 4 HWL Ebsworth (31 August 2016). "Federal Court Awards $3.3 Million to Native Title Claimants in First Litigated Compensation Claim Under the Native Title Act" . Retrieved 20 April 2019.
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 "Northern Territory of Australia v Griffiths [2017] FCAFC 106" . Retrieved 25 April 2019.
  13. 1 2 3 Prokuda, Henry (4 October 2017). "Full Federal Court Hands Down Appeal Decision in Timber Creek Native Title Case". Corrs Chambers Westgarth. Retrieved 11 May 2019.
  14. 1 2 3 "Northern Territory of Australia v Griffiths [2017] FCAFC 106" . Retrieved 12 May 2019.
  15. ↑ Moss, Aaron (26 February 2018). "Looking Forward, Looking Back: Native Title in 2017 and 2018". Australian Public Law. Retrieved 11 May 2019.
  16. ↑ National Indigenous Television (19 March 2019). "What Next After 'Most Significant' Native Title Decision Since Mabo" . Retrieved 11 May 2019.
  17. 1 2 "Northern Territory v Mr A. Griffiths (Deceased) and Lorraine Jones on Behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples [2019] HCA 7" . Retrieved 26 May 2019.

Related Research Articles

Eminent domain, land acquisition, compulsory purchase, resumption, resumption/compulsory acquisition, or expropriation is the power of a state, provincial, or national government to take private property for public use. It does not include the power to take and transfer ownership of private property from one property owner to another private property owner without a valid public purpose. This power can be legislatively delegated by the state to municipalities, government subdivisions, or even to private persons or corporations, when they are authorized by the legislature to exercise the functions of public character.

<i>Wik Peoples v Queensland</i> 1996 High Court of Australia decision

Wik Peoples v The State of Queensland is a decision of the High Court of Australia delivered on 23 December 1996 on whether statutory leases extinguish native title rights. The court found that the statutory pastoral leases under consideration by the court did not bestow rights of exclusive possession on the leaseholder. As a result, native title rights could co-exist depending on the terms and nature of the particular pastoral lease. Where there was a conflict of rights, the rights under the pastoral lease would extinguish the remaining native title rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian Indigenous sovereignty</span> Concept and political movement regarding land ownership by Indigenous peoples in Australia

Australian Indigenous sovereignty, also recently termed Blak sovereignty, refers to various rights claimed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples over parts or all of Australia. Such rights are said to derive from Indigenous peoples' occupation and ownership of Australia prior to colonisation and through their continuing spiritual connection to land. Indigenous sovereignty is not explicitly recognised in the Australian Constitution or under Australian law.

Native title is the designation given to the common law doctrine of Aboriginal title in Australia, which is the recognition by Australian law that Indigenous Australians have rights and interests to their land that derive from their traditional laws and customs. The concept recognises that in certain cases there was and is a continued beneficial legal interest in land held by Indigenous peoples which survived the acquisition of radical title to the land by the Crown at the time of sovereignty. Native title can co-exist with non-Aboriginal proprietary rights and in some cases different Aboriginal groups can exercise their native title over the same land.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals)</span> 1967 constitutional referendum on the legal status of Indigenous Australians

The second question of the 1967 Australian referendum of 27 May 1967, called by the Holt government, related to Indigenous Australians. Voters were asked whether to give the Federal Government the power to make special laws for Indigenous Australians in states, and whether in population counts for constitutional purposes to include all Indigenous Australians. The term "the Aboriginal Race" was used in the question.

<i>Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd</i> First Australian Aboriginal land rights case, heard in the NT Supreme Court in 1971

Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd, also known as the Gove land rights case because its subject was land known as the Gove Peninsula in the Northern Territory, was the first litigation on native title in Australia, and the first significant legal case for Aboriginal land rights in Australia, decided on 27 April 1971.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Court of Australia</span> Australian superior federal court

The Federal Court of Australia is an Australian superior court of record which has jurisdiction to deal with most civil disputes governed by federal law, along with some summary and indictable criminal matters. Cases are heard at first instance mostly by single judges. In cases of importance, a Full Court comprising three judges can be convened upon determination by the Chief Justice. The Court also has appellate jurisdiction, which is mostly exercised by a Full Court comprising three judges, the only avenue of appeal from which lies to the High Court of Australia. In the Australian court hierarchy, the Federal Court occupies a position equivalent to the supreme courts of each of the states and territories. In relation to the other courts in the federal stream, it is superior to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia for all jurisdictions except family law. It was established in 1976 by the Federal Court of Australia Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Native Title Act 1993</span> Act of the Parliament of Australia

The Native Title Act 1993(Cth) is a law passed by the Australian Parliament, the purpose of which is "to provide a national system for the recognition and protection of native title and for its co-existence with the national land management system". The Act was passed by the Keating government following the High Court's decision in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992). The Act commenced operation on 1 January 1994.

The Yirrkala bark petitions, sent by the Yolngu people, an Aboriginal Australian people of Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory, to the Australian Parliament in 1963, were the first traditional documents prepared by Indigenous Australians that were recognised by the Australian Parliament, and the first documentary recognition of Indigenous people in Australian law. The petitions asserted that the Yolngu people owned land over which the federal government had granted mining rights to a private company, Nabalco.

<i>Kruger v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

In Kruger v Commonwealth, decided in 1997, also known as the Stolen Generation Case, the High Court of Australia rejected a challenge to the validity of legislation applying in the Northern Territory between 1918 and 1957 which authorised the removal of Aboriginal children from their families. The majority of the bench found that the Aboriginals Ordinance 1918 was beneficial in intent and had neither the purpose of genocide nor that of restricting the practice of religion. The High Court unanimously held there was no separate action for a breach of any constitutional right.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal title</span> Concept in common law of indigenous land rights persisting after colonization

Aboriginal title is a common law doctrine that the land rights of indigenous peoples to customary tenure persist after the assumption of sovereignty under settler colonialism. The requirements of proof for the recognition of aboriginal title, the content of aboriginal title, the methods of extinguishing aboriginal title, and the availability of compensation in the case of extinguishment vary significantly by jurisdiction. Nearly all jurisdictions are in agreement that aboriginal title is inalienable, and that it may be held either individually or collectively.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal title in the United States</span> First country to recognize aboriginal title

The United States was the first jurisdiction to acknowledge the common law doctrine of aboriginal title. Native American tribes and nations establish aboriginal title by actual, continuous, and exclusive use and occupancy for a "long time." Individuals may also establish aboriginal title, if their ancestors held title as individuals. Unlike other jurisdictions, the content of aboriginal title is not limited to historical or traditional land uses. Aboriginal title may not be alienated, except to the federal government or with the approval of Congress. Aboriginal title is distinct from the lands Native Americans own in fee simple and occupy under federal trust.

Indigenous land rights in Australia, also known as Aboriginal land rights in Australia, relate to the rights and interests in land of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia, and the term may also include the struggle for those rights. Connection to the land and waters is vital in Australian Aboriginal culture and to that of Torres Strait Islander people, and there has been a long battle to gain legal and moral recognition of ownership of the lands and waters occupied by the many peoples prior to colonisation of Australia starting in 1788, and the annexation of the Torres Strait Islands by the colony of Queensland in the 1870s.

Timber Creek, traditionally known as Makalamayi, is an isolated small town on the banks of the Victoria River in the Northern Territory of Australia. The Victoria Highway passes through the town, which is the only significant settlement between the Western Australia border and the town of Katherine to the east. Timber Creek is approximately 600 kilometres (370 mi) south of Darwin, in an area known for its scenic escarpments and boab trees.

The Sagong Tasi case was a landmark land rights case in Malaysia, in which the courts ruled against the Selangor State in favour of the Temuan-Orang Asli plaintiffs.

<i>Akiba v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Akiba on behalf of the Torres Strait Regional Seas Claim Group v Commonwealth of Australia [2013] HCA 33; 250 CLR 209 is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. The matter related to Native title rights, their extension to other persons and their extinguishment by Statute.

The Jamindjung, also spelt Djamindjung, are an indigenous Australian people of the Northern Territory.

Debra Sue Mortimer is an Australian judge who has been the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia since 7 April 2023. She was born in New Zealand but has practised law in Australia. She has been a judge of the Federal Court of Australia since 2013, having previously been a Senior Counsel practising at the Victorian Bar in migration law, environmental law and anti-discrimination law.

Section 122 of the Constitution of Australia deals with matters relating to the governance of Australian territories. It gives the Commonwealth Parliament complete legislative power over the territories. This power is called the territories power. The extent and terms of the representation of the territories in the House of Representatives and the Senate are also stated as being at the discretion of the Commonwealth Parliament.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kings Valley mine (Western Australia)</span> Iron ore mine in Western Australia

The Kings Valley mine is an iron ore mine operated by the Fortescue Metals Group (FMG) and located in the Pilbara region of Western Australia, 60 km (37 mi) north of Tom Price. The mine, along with Firetail mine, is part of the company's Solomon Hub, one of three FMG's mining areas, the others being the Chichester Hub and the Western Hub.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.