12 January ARELJ - Case Note - Yindjibarndi Case “Occupation Requirement” Authority January 12, 2021 By Sally Parker ARELJ, General, Mining ARELJ, NativeTitleAct, Federal 0 Emily Pettersson Graduate, DLA Piper Australia. Fortescue Metals Group v Warrie on behalf of the Yindjibarndi People  FCAFC 177 Following the High Court’s May 2020 determination of three key legal issues – abuse of process, exclusivity, occupation – the Yindjibarndi case now stands as authority on the “occupation requirement” under ss 47A and 47B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), the evidence required to establish exclusive possession native title and the relevance of a neighbouring determination in favour of the same people. Member Login Required to Access Case Note Read More Related Articles FORREST AND FORREST PTY LTD AND MINISTER FOR ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS  WASAT 28 Western Australia’s State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) has rejected a review, by Forrest & Forrest Pty Ltd, against the refusal of consent to impact an Aboriginal site in constructing weirs across the Ashburton River. A unanimous three-member panel published its decision in April 2023. SAT’s decision and reasoning has direct significance and use for anyone involved in processes for a s 18 consent under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 and broader relevance for the law around protection of Aboriginal heritage in Western Australia. With the WA Government announcing the reversal of recent statutory changes and a return to the 1972 legislation, SAT’s decision has increased relevance. ARELJ Case Note - Applying the Cautionary Principle to Harvesting Timber in Victoria ARELJ - Case Note - Judgement Clarifies Extent of Non-Conforming Use Protections ARELJ - Case Note - Financial Consequences of the Dismissal of a Native Title Claim ARELJ Case Note - Implications of New Provisions in the Human Rights Act Following Waratah Coal Decision ARELJ - Case Note - Australian Offshore Petroleum Regulation: Defining and Protecting the National Interest Showing 0 Comment Comments are closed.