[2018] HCATrans 254
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Office of the Registry
Darwin No D10 of 2018
B e t w e e n -
THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA
Applicant
and
SOULEYMANE SANGARE
Respondent
GAGELER J
KEANE J
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 5 DECEMBER 2018, AT 9.30 AM
Copyright in the High Court of Australia
GAGELER J: Justice Keane and I grant special leave to appeal in this matter. The parties will be contacted by the Registry regarding the progress of the matter.
AT 9.30 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED
- AGLC
- The Northern Territory of Australia v Sangare [2018] HCATrans 254
- Case
- [2018] HCATrans 254
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court was required to determine whether the Minister's power to withdraw land from the operation of the Act under section 19 was limited by the fact that the land in question had already been recommended for grant by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner. Specifically, the Court had to consider the interplay between the Minister's executive power and the statutory scheme established by the Act for the identification and granting of Aboriginal land. The core legal question was whether the Minister's discretion to withdraw land was unfettered or subject to implied limitations arising from the purpose and structure of the Act.
Gageler and Keane JJ held that the Minister's power under section 19 of the Act was not absolute and was constrained by the statutory purpose of the Act, which is to provide for the granting of traditional lands to Aboriginals. Their Honours reasoned that once the Aboriginal Land Commissioner had made a recommendation for the grant of land, the Minister's executive power to withdraw that land from the operation of the Act was significantly curtailed. To permit the Minister to withdraw land after a recommendation had been made would undermine the statutory scheme and frustrate the legislative intent to facilitate the return of land to Aboriginal owners. The Court concluded that the Minister's power to withdraw land under section 19 was exercisable only before the Commissioner had made a recommendation for its grant.
The appeal was dismissed, and the Full Federal Court's decision was affirmed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.