Commonwealth v Yunupingu

Commonwealth v Yunupingu is a judicial decision of the High Court of Australia relating to indigenous native title and Australian constitutional interpretation. It found that native title rights are valid property rights, and that native title holders are entitled to compensation on just terms if the Commonwealth seeks to acquire the property.^[1]

Commonwealth v Yunupingu
Court	High Court of Australia
Full case name	Commonwealth of Australia v. Yunupingu (on behalf of the Gumatj Clan or Estate Group) & Ors
Decided	12 March 2025 (2025-03-12)
Citation	[2025] HCA 6
Case history
Prior action	[2023] FCAFC 75
Appealed from	Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia
Ruling
Appeal dismissed
Court membership
Judges sitting	Chief Justice Stephen Gageler Justice Virginia Bell Justice James Edelman Justice Simon Steward Justice Jacqueline Gleeson Justice Jayne Jagot Justice Robert Beech-Jones

The High Court upheld the original decision of the Federal Court of Australia, decided on 12 March 2025.^[2]

The Commonwealth argued that native title rights were 'inherently fragile' and unlike other property rights.^[3] It is speculated they may be liable for up to $700 million in compensation to the Gumatj people.^[4]

The decision may provide for potential actions by other native title holders to seek compensation from the Commonwealth for acquiring native title land elsewhere in Australia.^[5]

Background

Galarrwuy Yunupingu AM brought a native title claim on behalf of the Gumatj, a clan of the Yolŋu People, to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in 2019.^[6] The claim sought financial compensation for land acquired by the Commonwealth in the Gove Peninsula in northeast Arnhem Land for bauxite mining purposes in the 1950s and 60s.^[2] The Federal Court ruled in Yunupingu's favour in May 2023.^[2]

See also

• Australian constitutional law
• Love v Commonwealth
• Mabo v Queensland (No 2)