Ellis v Central Land Council [2019] FCAFC 1

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ellis v Central Land Council [2019] FCAFC 1 Appeal from: Ellis v Central Land Council [2018] FCA 35

File number: NTD 15 of 2018

Judges: BARKER, GRIFFITHS AND WHITE JJ

Date of judgment: 24 January 2019

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal from a judgment of a single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia – whether the primary judge erred in placing determinative weight on the operation of s 77A of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) (ALR Act) in circumstances where no party submitted s 77A was relevant – whether the primary judge erred in failing to find that the appellants had been denied procedural fairness – whether the primary judge erred in her consideration of certain grounds run below, including by misunderstanding or mischaracterising the ground – whether the Central Land Council Committee (the Committee) lawfully formed a state of satisfaction under s 19(5)(a) of the ALR Act that the traditional Aboriginal owners of the Amoonguna land understood the nature and purpose of certain proposed leases and licences and, as a group, consented to them – whether it was legally unreasonable for the Committee to make its decision concerning the grant of the leases and licences without awaiting the provision of a commissioned anthropological report ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – cross-appeal – whether the affixing of the common seal of the Land Trust to the grants without a written authority signed by three members of the Land Trust invalidated the grants – whether s 5(2) of the ALR Act had the effect that the common seals had been validly affixed – whether later written authorities amounted to ratification of the earlier affixation of the common seal on the instruments of grant – whether the common law indoor management rule is applicable – claim that non-compliance with s 4(5) of the ALR Act was not invalidating – cross-appeal dismissed ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – whether the grantees had an equitable interest arising from their agreements that the leases and licence be granted to them – whether s 19(6) of the ALR Act preserved the validity of the grants – concluded view on these issues not necessary EVIDENCE – whether the primary judge imposed an erroneously high standard of proof on the appellants or otherwise erred in making findings of fact – whether the primary judge misunderstood and/or misapplied the rule in Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; 101 CLR 298