Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
De Rose v State of South Australia [2013] FCA 988 Citation: De Rose v State of South Australia [2013] FCA 988
Parties: PETER DE ROSE, HUGHIE CULLINAN, TJARUWA ANDERSON AND KARINA LESTER ON BEHALF OF THE DE ROSE HILL COMPENSATION CLAIM GROUP v STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA, DE ROSE HILL-ILPALKA ABORIGINAL CORPORATION RNTBC, ICN 4712 and COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
File number: SAD 55 of 2013
Judge: MANSFIELD J
Date of judgment: 1 October 2013
Catchwords: NATIVE TITLE – compensation application – consent determination – consideration of matters relevant to approving proposed determination under s 87(5) Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) NATIVE TITLE – compensation application – consent determination – reasons for order under s 37AG, Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) that amount of compensation not be published
Legislation: Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ss 13, 20, 50, 51, 51A, 53, 61, 61A, 62, 66, 84A, 87, 87(5), 94 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37AG, 38M Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Cth) s 51(xxxi)
Cases cited: De Rose v South Australia [2002] FCA 1342 De Rose v South Australia (2003) 133 FCR 325 De Rose v South Australia (No 2) (2005) 145 FCR 290 Lander v South Australia [2012] FCA 427 Lovett on behalf of the Gunditjmara People v State of Victoria [2007] FCA 474
Date of hearing: 1 October 2013
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate