Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Council v Attorney General of New South Wales [2019] FCA 1270

Stockton

The determination covers a single lot of land referred to as Lot 227. This land is approximately 0.6 square kilometres in size and is located in Stockton in the Parish of Stowell, County of Gloucester in New South Wales.

For further information see Annexure A of the determination in the url link above.

Between:

Worimi Local Aboriginal Council (Applicant) and Attorney General of New South Wales (Respondent).

Judge: Jagot J  

Decision:

This was an unopposed application. The Court made orders under s 86 G of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) that native title does not exist in the determination area.

It was common ground between the parties that native title had been extinguished by the Crown granting interests in land, which amounted to previous exclusive possession acts.

Background: 

The Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Council (Worimi LALC) is the registered proprietor of the single lot of land that comprises the determination area. Its interest in the lot is a non-native title interest.

On 25 October 2018, it filed a non-claimant application for a negative determination of native title under s 61(1) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) [6]. Without such a determination, s 42 of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW) would prevent it from dealing with the land. 

Details of Judgment: 

The Worimi LALC submitted that the lot was subject to a previous exclusive possession act, as covered by s 23B of the NTA, in that it had been subject to a lease that fell within the meaning of a scheduled interest under s 249C of the NTA [33]. Survey evidence showed the lot to have been wholly within Special Lease 1923-4 which was for 'wells, tanks, water conservation, and pole lines' [34].

Justice Jagot accepted accordingly that the lot was subject to a previous exclusive possession act [37]. Her Honour then came to the conclusion that a historical overlap with a discontinued Maaiangal native title claim was not relevant because that claim had not been for any exclusive native title [37].

Moreover, Jagot J concluded that because the Worimi LALC's application was unopposed, had been duly notified under s 66 of the NTA, and there was no other native title interest in the lot, nothing stood to prevent the Court from granting the application [42]. 

Related Entries