Australia, July 2 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement:

1. By notice of motion filed 14 May 2025, the applicant seeks a stay of a writ of possession issued by Faulkner J on 22 April 2025 in New South Wales v Simpson [2025] NSWSC 429 (PJ or primary judgment). The applicant on the motion is the same person as the defendant below but prefers to use his Indigenous name.

2. A notice of appeal was filed 30 April 2025. It raises the following nine grounds of appeal:

1. Jurisdictional Error

The learned judge failed to determine whether the Supreme Court had lawful jurisdiction to proceed, given the absence of any valid evidence of sovereignty, cession, or consent from the Nyangbul people. This failure renders the orders void ab initio.

2. Constructive Denial of Procedural Fairness

The Court refused to consider the Appellant's oral submissions at hearing, dismissed all filed evidence as "futile" without examination, and failed to allow proper argument on jurisdictional objections, thereby denying natural justice.

3. Suppression of Cross-Claim

The Court issued final orders in the possession proceedings without determining the Appellant's live cross-claim, which raised jurisdiction, compensation, and counter-possession issues. This constitutes a serious procedural failure and miscarriage of justice.

4. Denial of Constitutional Right to Uplift

The Appellant raised constitutional and public law matters requiring referral under section 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). The judge failed to afford that right or refer the matter to the High Court, in breach of judicial duty and federal law.

5. Improper Joinder and Identity Misrepresentation

The Appellant was joined under a misrepresented name and date of birth, without resolution of formal objections. The Court proceeded to judgment against a party who was improperly identified and did not lawfully consent to the proceedings.

6. Breach of Filing Procedure Induced by the Court

The Appellant was directed by the judge's associate to file defence documents via email instead of through the Registry. The same documents were then dismissed as "out of time" and "futile," despite the Court's own procedural misdirection.

7. Misapplication of Registered Title Law

The Court accepted the Respondent's Crown Land title claim via private registration (Pty Ltd) without requiring evidence of native title extinguishment, treaty, or lawful acquisition, violating the rule of law and the presumption in favour of original ownership.

8. Breach of International Law and Customary Obligations

The Court failed to consider binding international obligations under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including Articles 3, 4, 8, and 26, and ignored customary international law under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 38.

9. Apprehended Bias and Prejudgment

The Court's blanket dismissal of all affidavits and submissions as "futile" without analysis reveals prejudgment and bias, amounting to a failure to exercise judicial function in accordance with law.

3. I gather that the State also contends that leave to appeal is required and a direction has been made for the appellant to file and serve by 4 June 2025 a White Folder for that purpose. The proceedings are listed for directions on 16 June 2025.

4. The applicant relies on the following affidavits:

a) a document styled "Living Testimony Supplementary Affidavit of Jaabarun Nyangbul" filed 8 May 2025;

b) a document styled "3rd Supplementary living testimony in form affidavit for Jaabarun Nyangbul" filed 15 May 2025;

c) a document styled "Living testimony of Jaabarun Nyangbul in form of Affidavit 4th Supplementary Affidavit" filed 20 May 2025; and

d) a document styled "Living testimony Fifth Supplementary Affidavit of Jaabarun Nyangbul" by way of reply to the State's affidavits, filed 29 May 2025.

5. The State opposes the stay application and relies on the following affidavits:

A) affidavit dated 23 May 2025 by Ms Jade Matthews; and

B) affidavit dated 23 May 2025 by Mr Craig Samuel Wood.

6. The appeal has not yet been listed for hearing. As matters stand at present, it is proposed to enforce the writ of possession the following day, 17 June 2025.

7. The motion initially came before me as Referrals Judge on 26 May 2025. The hearing was adjourned until today to give the applicant more time to consider and reply to the State's two affidavits.

8. The applicant has filed three outlines of written submissions filed 22, 26 and 29 May 2025, respectively. The State filed an outline of submissions on 23 May 2025.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1972e671114775c889544bef)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.