Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

Griffiths v Minister for Lands, Planning and Environment.

Pays/Territoire
Australie
Type de cour
Nationale - cour supérieure
Date
Mai 15, 2008
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
High Court of Australia
Juge
Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan and Kiefel.
Numéro de référence
[2008] HCA 20
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Questions juridiques, Terre et sols
Mot clé
Droit constitutionnel Régime foncier Planification territoriale Populations autochtones Propriété étrangère
Résumé
This appeal from the Northern Territory Court of Appeal concerned land in the north-west of the Northern Territory (‘NT’), at the town of Timber Creek. The only legal interests in the town land were those held by the Crown, as unalienated Crown land. However, the appellants had, in separate Federal Court proceedings commenced in 1999, sought a determination of native title over vacant Crown land in the town, with the determination being finalised in the appellants’ favour in November 2007. In 2000, the respondent Minister notified the appellants of proposals to compulsorily acquire the native title, pursuant to Part IV of the Lands Acquisition Act (NT) (‘LAA’). The land was to be sold or leased to private persons for agricultural or tourism purposes of a commercial nature. Section 43(1) of the LAA relevantly provides that the Minister may, subject to the pre-acquisition procedures in Parts IV and IVA of the LAA, compulsorily acquire land ‘for any purpose whatsoever’ by publishing a notice in the Gazette declaring the land to be acquired. Pursuant to ss 5A(1) and 34 of the LAA, and ss 24MD(6A) and 24MD(6B) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (‘NTA’), the appellants made objections to the compulsory acquisitions at Timber Creek. The first issue in this appeal was whether s 43(1) of the LAA confers power on the Minister to acquire land from one person solely to enable it to be sold or leased by the Territoryfor private use to another person. The second issue was whether the proposed acquisitions were contrary to the NTA, especially s 24MD, which requires that ‘all non-native title rights and interests’ relating to the same land or waters of compulsorily acquired native title rights and interests are also acquired. On the first issue, Chief Justice Gleeson and Justices Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Crennan all found that the expression ‘for any purpose whatsoever’ in s. 43(1) of the LAA must, at least, include for the purpose of exercising the power conferred by s. 9 of the CLA. Justices Kirby and Kiefel dissented. On the second, all seven judges were of the view that s. 24MD allowed for a compulsory acquisition that had the effect of extinguishing native title, even where the only interests existing in the area concerned (other than those of the Crown) are native title rights and interests, provided all of the conditions found in s. 24MD(2) are met. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and the appellants were ordered to pay the Northern Territory’s costs
Texte intégral
COU-156844.pdf