Power, History and Fairness: When “Use” of Crown Land Becomes the Turning Point
The High Court in La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council v Quarry Street [2025] HCA 32 confirmed that Crown land is claimable under s 36(1)(b) of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act unless the Crown itself is using the land at the relevant time. The Court rejected approaches that focused on third-party occupation or the presence of infrastructure, holding that the statutory test turns solely on Crown use. This matters for clients because disputes involving land, infrastructure and public records often hinge on narrow statutory terms, and late-stage interpretation shifts can change the litigation pathway and its cost exposure. Cost-alignment (one-path funding) helps clients manage this uncertainty by ensuring they fund only the pathway they ultimately take, rather than preparing for settlement and litigation at the same time.
Power, Penalties and Fairness: When One Post Counts Once
The High Court in Laming v Electoral Commissioner [2025] HCA 31 held that an unauthorised electoral communication posted online constitutes a single contravention when it is disseminated to the public under s 321D of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The Court rejected an approach that multiplied penalties with each view of the post, noting that dissemination occurs when material is made available to the public, not each time it is opened. This matters for clients because digital conduct is increasingly central to regulatory disputes, and cost exposure often depends on how legislation treats online behaviour. When penalty risk turns on statutory interpretation rather than platform metrics, cost-alignment (one-path funding) helps clients fund only the pathway they ultimately take, rather than paying for both settlement work and litigation preparation at once.