«Unambiguous impropriety» amounts to a catch - all description of situations where the cloak of the without prejudice rule acts so as to shield some bad action on
behalf of the party invoking it, and is in effect an exception based upon the rule of unconscionability — that such bad action should not be protected by a rule of public policy.
He found that in order the government to acquire private interests for the benefit
of a private third
party to be valid under the LAA, it must be enabled by a specific and unambiguous provision
of the Act [66] and that, unless such an unambiguous provision exists, «the well - established principles
of the common law that are here
invoked... on
behalf of the Aboriginal native title holders», should be upheld.