Exercise 018 | Law

Exercise 018

Racial Discrimination: Janice Pareroultja; Dulcie Jakkadai; Elfreida Ungwanaka and Magdeline Ungwanaka v. Robert Tickner; Kunmanara Breaden and Max Stuart (1993) 117 ALR 206 (1993) 42 FCR 32

click here to download this document
click here (AustLII link) to view the case

Easy questions

  1. What is the citation of the case?
  2. Who were the applicants?
  3. Who was counsel for the respondents?
  4. Who were the judges?
  5. What were the material facts of the case?
  6. What type of case was it - civil, criminal, first instance, appellate?
  7. Explain the following terms (using your legal dictionary):
    1. acquisition of sovereignty
    2. prerogative power
    3. fee simple
    4. native title
    5. common law
    6. sovereignty
    7. extinguishment of native title
  8. Was this a unanimous decision?
  9. Could there be an appeal from this decision? If so, to what court?

More difficult questions

  1. What legal question/s did the judges have to decide?
  2. What was the outcome of the case?
  3. What were the arguments of counsel for the applicant/s?
  4. What were the arguments of counsel for the respondent/s?
  5. What did Lockhart J think were the issue/s to be decided?
  6. What case did Lockhart J put forward as authority on native title?
  7. According to Lockhart J, what was the role of the Land Rights Act in relation to an Aboriginal Land Trust?
  8. What status does native title have in the common law of Australia?
  9. What rights do Aboriginal people have under native title?

Complex questions

  1. Does Lockhart J believe that grants of land to Land Trusts are inconsistent with the existence of native title to the land?
    1. Why or why not?
  2. What evidence did Lockhart J give that the Land Rights Act is consistent with native title?
  3. What was Lockhart J's reasoning regarding the relationship between the Racial Discrimination Act, the Aboriginal Land Rights Act and native title?
  4. Do you think Lockhart J's reasoning in this regard was correct?
  5. Do you think his decisions regarding the main issues were correct?
  6. Is there a legal rule that you think this case stands for?
  7. Of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1975, which act prevails where there is an inconsistency?
  8. Why did the judge decide that there should be no order as to costs?
  9. Does the case follow precedent or does it change the law in some way?