Manado on behalf of the Bindunbur Native Title Claim Group v State of Western Australia [2018] FCAFC 238

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Manado on behalf of the Bindunbur Native Title Claim Group v State of Western Australia [2018] FCAFC 238 Appeal from: Manado (on behalf of the Bindunbur Native Title Claim Group) v State of Western Australia [2017] FCA 1367 Manado (on behalf of the Bindunbur Native Title Claim Group) v State of Western Australia [2018] FCA 275 Manado (on behalf of the Bindunbur Native Title Claim Group) v State of Western Australia [2018] FCA 854

File numbers: WAD 215 of 2018 WAD 216 of 2018 WAD 217 of 2018

Judges: BARKER, PERRY AND CHARLESWORTH JJ

Date of judgment: 20 December 2018

Catchwords: NATIVE TITLE – appeal from native title determination and orders of Federal Court of Australia – where primary judge dismissed Goolarabooloo native title claim – where primary judge found that rights arising from a rayi connection within determination area are not native title rights or interests within meaning of s 223 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA) – where primary judge found that function and rights of persons who are ritual leaders in relation to areas or places within determination area are not native title rights or interests within meaning of s 223 of the NTA – whether primary judge's findings made in error – appeal dismissed NATIVE TITLE – appeal from native title determination and orders of Federal Court of Australia – where primary judge determined nature and extent of other interests in relation to determination areas of the Bindunbur and Jabirr Jabirr/Ngumbarl native title claim groups – where other interests included public access to and enjoyment of waterways; beds and banks or foreshores of waterways; coastal waters; or beaches – construction and operation of ss 212, 225(c) and 253 of the NTA – operation of s 14 of the Titles (Validation) and Native Title (Effect of Past Acts) Act 1995 (WA) – where primary judge found that an ability in the public to access unallocated Crown land is an "interest" for the purposes of s 253 of the NTA and so should be included in the determinations – where primary judge found such an ability is a "privilege" for the purposes of the definition of interest in s 253 – appeal allowed