Daniel (for the Ngarluma, Yindjibarndi, Yaburara, Mardudhunera and Wong-goo-tt-oo Peoples) v Western Australia

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
Year2000
Date2000
CourtFederal Court

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
7 cases
  • Lithgow City Council v Jackson
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 28 September 2011
    ...under the common law …, s 78 expands the scope for such evidence.’ This is a common view: see, for example, Daniel v Western Australia (2000) 178 ALR 542 at 546–547 [17]. Its correctness depends on the assumption that the common law ‘classes of cases’ comprised a narrow closed category — ‘a......
  • Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 22 June 2011
    ...that questions of admissibility should not be the prime determinant of admissibility is novel. In Daniel v Western Australia (2000) 178 ALR 542 at 546 [16] R D Nicholson J recorded Branson J's view, but the challenge to the evidence in that case did not depend on its validity, and the refer......
  • Alphapharm Pty Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • 24 April 2008
    ...the Evidence Act) was referred to by Finkelstein J in Quick v Stoland at 382 and by Nicholson J in Daniel v State of Western Australia (2000) 178 ALR 542 at [30]-[34]. 773 Section 136 of the Evidence Act is entitled “General discretion to limit use of evidence” and provides: The court may l......
  • Bodney v Bennell
    • Australia
    • Full Federal Court (Australia)
    • 23 April 2008
    ...Sampi v Western Australia [2005] FCA 777 cited Jango v Northern Territory (No 4) 214 ALR 608 cited Daniel v Western Australia (2000) 178 ALR 542 cited Quick v Stoland Pty Ltd (1998) 87 FCR 371 cited Lardil, Kaiadilt, Yangkaal, Gangalidda Peoples v Queensland [2000] FCA 1548 cited Harrington......
  • Get Started for Free