decisions of the full court of the high court of australia are binding upon parliament.
decisions of the full court of the high court of australia are binding upon?
parliament
northern territory v alan griffiths and lorraine jones has been considered a "landmark" native title case. this is because the clauses contained within the native title act 1993 (commonwealth) pertaining to the determination of compensation payable due to the extinguishment of native title have never been heard before in the high court. this case will therefore establish a precedent for future native title compensation cases heard in the high court. it has been stated that the precedent set in this case will give rise to the payment of significant amounts of money in related future cases where native title rights and interests have been found to be extinguished or impaired by acts attributable to external parties. the reduction in compensation awarded to the ngaliwurru and nungali peoples was the result of the high court's decision that the amount of compensation payable for the financial loss attributable to the extinguishment of native title rights is equivalent to fifty percent of the value of the land. this represents a reduction of fifteen percent from the sixty-five percent established by the full court of the federal court of australia in "northern territory of australia v griffiths" [2017] fcafc 106. the northern territory of australia, not the commonwealth of australia - is the party that has been ordered by the high court to pay the compensation amount awarded to the ngaliwurru and nungali peoples. this is because northern territory was the party responsible for all the compensable acts recognised by the judicial system as having taken place in the timber creek area. the high court of australia varied the ruling made by the full court of the federal court in "griffiths v northern territory of australia" (2007) 165 fcr 391 such that the native title rights and interests borne by the ngaliwurru and nungali peoples in the timber creek area are non-exclusive. the high court reached this decision having considered that the ngaliwurru and nungali peoples did not have the capacity to stop people from gaining entry to the land the subject of their native title rights and interests; the ngaliwurru and nungali peoples did not have the ability to grant or deny people the right to gain access to their land. the determination that the native title rights and interests of the ngaliwurru and nungali peoples in the timber creek area are non-exclusive was the reason why the high court modified the calculation of the monetary amount of compensation payable from sixty-five percent of the worth of the land the subject of the native title rights and interests to fifty percent.
northern territory v mr griffiths and lorraine jones
israel's supreme court is at the head of the court system in the state of israel. it is the highest judicial instance. the supreme court sits in jerusalem. the area of its jurisdiction is the entire state. a ruling of the supreme court is binding upon every court, other than the supreme court itself. the israeli supreme court is both an appellate court and the high court of justice. as an appellate court, the supreme court considers cases on appeal (both criminal and civil) on judgments and other decisions of the district courts. it also considers appeals on judicial and quasi-judicial decisions of various kinds, such as matters relating to the legality of knesset elections and disciplinary rulings of the bar association. as the high court of justice (hebrew: beit mishpat gavoha le'zedek בית משפט גבוה לצדק; also known by its initials as bagatz בג"ץ), the supreme court rules as a court of first instance, primarily in matters regarding the legality of decisions of state authorities: government decisions, those of local authorities and other bodies and persons performing public functions under the law, and direct challenges to the constitutionality of laws enacted by the knesset. the court has broad discretionary authority to rule on matters in which it considers it necessary to grant relief in the interests of justice, and which are not within the jurisdiction of another court or tribunal. the high court of justice grants relief through orders such as injunction, mandamus and habeas corpus, as well as through declaratory judgments. the supreme court can also sit at a further hearing on its own judgment. in a matter on which the supreme court has ruled - whether as a court of appeals or as the high court of justice – with a panel of three or more justices, it may rule at a further hearing with a panel of a larger number of justices. a further hearing may be held if the supreme court makes a ruling inconsistent with a previous ruling or if the court deems that the importance, difficulty or novelty of a ruling of the court justifies such hearing. the supreme court also holds the unique power of being able to order "trial de novo" (a retrial).
supreme court