ATNS - Agreements, Treaties and Negotiated Settlements project

Back to search results

Print this page
Gale v Minister for Land & Water Conservation for the State of New South Wales [2004] FCA 374 (31 March 2004) NG6004 of 1998
Category:	Case Law
Date:	31 March 2004
Sub Category:	Case Law
Place:	Lower Portland
	Click this link to search this location with google maps
State/Country:	New South Wales, Australia
	Click this link to search this location with google maps
Legal Status:	Registered on the National Native Title Tribunal R
Legal Reference:	Federal Court file no.: NG6004/98
Alternative Names:	Darug People
URL:	http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2004/374.html
Summary Information:
Gale v Minister for Land & Water Conservation for the State of New South Wales [2004] FCA 374 (31 March 2004) Between: Dennis Charles Gale on behalf of the Darug people (APPLICANT) AND Minister for Land and Water Conservation for the State of New South Wales, New South Wales Native Title Service Limited, Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council, Edna Mariong Watson, Patricia Jarvis, and Sharon Richards (RESPONDENTS). Judge: Madjwick J Determination: Native title does not exist in the determination area.
Detailed Information:
The determination relates to an application made by Dennis Charles Gale on behalf of the Darug People for a determination of native title under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA). The determination area consists of 10 hectares of land in the Lower Portland Area several hundred metres west of the Gloucester and Sussex Reaches of the Hawkesbury River on its northern side. The principal respondents of the application are the Minister for Land and Water Conservation for the State of New South Wales and the Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council who in 1999 had made a claim to the land the subject of the present application, a claim subsequently approved by the Minister in 2000. The Minister contended that the approval of the claim was valid and that it had accorded the Deerubbin a right equivalent to the fee simple of the subject land, which had thereby extinguished native title. The applicant subsequently decided that there was little point to proceeding with the application except to gain compensation. However as legal recognition of rights rather than monetary gain was the original goal of the claimant group, the applicant wished to withdraw in such a way that their interest in the other claim filed in the Court for parcels of land in the Sydney basin would not be prejudiced. The applicant was therefore not prepared to consent to a determination that no native title existed in the subject land. It was ultimately agreed that the issue of extinguishment would not be decided and the applicant withdrew from the proceedings. It was the understanding of all the parties that the respondents would seek a determination of the non-existence of native title and that the applicant would not oppose that. It remained to the Court to decide whether this was a legally proper course of action. Ultimately, the Court decided that there was no adequate reason why a determination that no native title existed should not be made in relation to the subject land.