Case: Daniel v State of Western Australia [2003] FCA 666
Outcome: cited
The Yawuru claimants did not contest the extinguishment claimed in respect of the areas on which the gaol and the police station have been constructed. As I later explain, it is common ground that extinguishment has occurred in any event in respect of those areas because the gaol and police station are public works. The contest relates to the vacant land in the reserves that has not yet been used for the purposes of a gaol or police station. Although a similar issue was considered in Daniel v State of Western Australia [2003] FCA 666 (' Daniel ') at [688] and [698], the question of whether the assertion of the right to build a gaol or a prison on part of the reserved land extinguished inconsistent native title rights over the whole of the reserved land was not considered in Daniel or Ward HC . 128 Although it was accepted by the parties that the resolution of the dispute involved matters of fact and degree, the State's submissions set out a number of useful examples and guidelines: 'In Hayes v Northern Territory [1999] FCA 1248 ; (1999) 97 FCR 32 ( Hayes ) at page 109 (xiv) Justice Olney found that "it may well be inferred that 'recreation equipment' would be both a structure and a fixture." Again, at page 102 (viii), his Honour stated that "... there is no evidence of any building or structure in the nature of a fixture other than possibly a fence ..." Clearly Justice Olney regarded recreation equipment and fences as examples of structures that could be considered as public works for the purposes of the NTA . This accords with the ordinary meaning of structure being simply something "built or constructed". At page 108 of Hayes his Honour said: "Whether or not a particular structure is to be regarded as a fixture will depend upon the context in which that question has to be determined but the general principles are well established and do not need to be recited here." The general principles can be summarised as follows: 217.1 The common law previously looked to the degree of annexation of an item; if substantially affixed, the item was a fixture, otherwise, it remained a chattel. 217.2 The importance of annexation has, however, declined over time, and the focus now is on the intention with which the item was put in place; if for better use or enjoyment of the land, the item is a fixture, for better use or enjoyment of the item, it is likely to be a chattel. There are two prima facie presumptions applied: 218.1 first, if an item is affixed to the land, it is presumed to be a fixture, and the burden of proof lies on those who assert it is not; 218.2 second, if an item rests by its own weight, it is presumed not to be a fixture, and the burden of proof rests on those asserting that it is. The presumptions may be rebutted by evidence to the contrary; for example, stone blocks resting by their own weight and placed to form a dry stone wall would be intended for better enjoyment of the land, and hence a fixture, whereas such blocks stacked in a builders yard would not. A concrete rail head or culvert for a drain, on the principles set out above, is more likely to have been put in place to enhance enjoyment of the land, hence would be a fixture, regardless of whether it is affixed or resting of its own weight. Likewise, it cannot be said as a matter of generality that playground equipment or pine bollard fencing are not fixtures, as it will depend upon the intention of the person or persons who bring it onto the land. In Daniel v State of Western Australia [2003] FCA 666 at [1047] Nicholson J found that water tanks and sewerage and waste water treatment plants were public work previous exclusive possession acts. In Sampi at [1126] and [1148] his Honour Justice French found a radio site constructed by Telstra to be a public work previous exclusive possession act. As to major earthworks, the Explanatory Memorandum to the Native Title Bill 1993 gave as examples: "... dams and weirs whose construction permanently and significantly disturbs or changes the land." Excluded from the examples given were digging wells, cultivating land for crops or establishing a walking trail in a National Park. ... In any event, as to the extent of the public works in each area, the First Respondent relies upon the decision of his Honour Justice Sundberg in Neowarra v State of Western Australia (No 1) [2003] FCA 1399 ; (2003) 134 FCR 208 ( Neowarra ) at [654] to [660] to the effect that: "Section 251D [NTA] is specifically directed to public works, and is plainly intended to operate in conjunction with ss 23B(7) and 23C(2). There is no reason to deny its beneficial function of ensuring that a public work has the benefit of adjacent land that is necessary for or incidental to the operation of the work, especially in relation to access to landlocked works."'