Jango v Northern Territory (No 4)

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
Year2005
Date2005
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
  • Aytugrul v R
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 18 April 2012
    ...v BDX (2009) 24 VR 288 at 298–305. 90 Farrell v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 286; [1998 ] HCA 50. 91 Jango v Northern Territory (No 4) (2004) 214 ALR 608 at 615 [40]. 92 R v Runjanjic (1991) 56 SASR 114 . 93 R v Bartlett [1996] 2 VR 687 at 694–696. 94 Trevorrow v South Australia (No 5) (20......
  • Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 22 June 2011
    ...141 Australia, The Law Reform Commission, Evidence, Report No 26, (1985) vol 1 at 417 [750]. 142Jango v Northern Territory (No 4) (2004) 214 ALR 608 at 612 [19]; Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd (2006) 228 ALR 719 at 722 [7]; Gambro Pty Ltd v Fresenius Medical......
  • Alphapharm Pty Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • 24 April 2008
    ...In re Adamson (1960) 275 F 2d 952 not followed In re O’Farrell (1988) 853 F 2d 894 at 903) cited Jango v Northern Territory (No 4) (2004) 214 ALR 608 cited Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd (2004) 217 CLR 274 cited Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Product......
  • Bodney v Bennell
    • Australia
    • Full Federal Court (Australia)
    • 23 April 2008
    ...v Western Australia (No 1) (2003) 134 FCR 208 considered 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, Gangali......
  • Get Started for Free
2 books & journal articles
  • The Definition and Discovery of Facts in Native Title: The Historian's Contribution
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Federal Law Review No. 36-3, September 2008
    • 1 September 2008
    ...104 Cf Jango v Northern Territory (No 4) (2004) 214 ALR 608, 612–13 [25]–[31], where Sackville J held (at 613 [29]) that the task of 'determining the primary facts' (eg, 'dates of birth, family links or the observances of particular practices') from historical documentation was not a task t......
  • Mental Health Expertise in Refugee Status Decision-Making: Judging or Caring?
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The No. 18-4, October 2014
    • 1 October 2014
    ...(1961) 108 CLR 642; Arnotts Ltd vTrade PracticesCommission (1990) 24 FCR 313 at 347–8. See also Jango vNorthern Territory (No. 4) (2005) 214 ALR 608.This point is reiterated in Dasreef Pty Ltd vHawcher (2011) 243 CLR 588 at [31], insofar as in this casealso, the parties (and/or the judge) s......