Federal court reaches different findings to the Royal Commission regarding Hindmarsh Island (Kumaragk) South Australia

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    11 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    A recent Federal Court decision (Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd (No 5) [2001]
    FCA 1106, judgment delivered 21 August) has reached significantly
    different findings to those from the South Australian Hindmarsh Island
    Bridge Royal Commission 1995. The Federal Court found that it was 'not satisfied
    that the restricted women's knowledge was fabricated or that it was not part of genuine Aboriginal tradition'. This is in stark contrast to the Royal Commission which found that 'the whole claim of the "women's business" from its inception was a fabrication'. It is interesting to note that from the outset the Court was informed (by both the applicants and the respondents) that 'the Court was not required to decide whether the restricted women's knowledge, the subject of the
    Fergie and Saunders Reports, was a genuine part of Aboriginal tradition'.
    Rather, the case was supposed to focus on whether or not the respondents (Mr
    Tickner, Professor Saunders, Luminis and Dr Fergie) had carried out their
    respective tasks properly. The Chapmans (the applicants) contended that the
    respondents were liable to pay damages on the grounds that their company
    (Binalong) suffered loss because the respondents' actions delayed the building
    of the lindmarsh Island Bridge.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)260-260
    Number of pages1
    JournalAlternative Law Journal
    Volume26
    Issue number5
    Publication statusPublished - Oct 2001

    Keywords

    • Hindmarsh Island Bridge Royal Commission
    • Aboriginal traditions
    • women's business

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Federal court reaches different findings to the Royal Commission regarding Hindmarsh Island (Kumaragk) South Australia'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this