Sentences with phrase «party native applications»

Text messaging, unlike third - party native applications, is standard across device types and carriers.

Not exact matches

By leveraging TalentLMS» Zapier - native integration, you can hook your eLearning portal to any of the hundreds of third - party applications supported by Zapier.

It allows users to create shortcuts to various settings, native and third party applications, and composer functions such as new email, text message, contact, calendar, and Remember.

As someone who is constantly on her phone and browsing the web, I not only use the native browser but third - party applications as well to help me with my daily fix.

NSR Reader is a third - party view that allows you to view PDF, TIFF, and DjVu files with ease on your BlackBerry and demonstrates functionality not found in the native applications...

Ever since Google incorporated native support for Sony's Runtime Resource Overlay (RRO) theme engine in Android 6.0 Marshmallow, we've been waiting for Google to provide a built - in interface as well as public APIs that developers can use to theme both system framework application as well as third - party applications.

Tencent, one of China's biggest Internet portals, unveiled its Q + desktop interface to officially launch the QQ Open Platform for native applications and those developed by third - party developers.

They are in the midst of integrating with a variety of third - party service providers to bring new and emerging applications into a realm of usefulness that can only be achieved with native functionality and a high degree of user trust.

If a person were excluded from a native title application he or she could seek to be joined as a party to the proceedings by means of an interlocutory application: s 84 (5) Native Title Act 1993 native title application he or she could seek to be joined as a party to the proceedings by means of an interlocutory application: s 84 (5) Native Title Act 1993 Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

The Commonwealth's participation in native title litigation, either as a party with a property interest in the land affected by the claim or with a policy interest in the Court's interpretation or application of the legislation to the claim before it, is decided within the Attorney - General's Department.

In relation to the jurisdiction of arbitral bodies to hear applications for determinations regarding proposed future acts, the amended act specifically states that an arbitral body must not make a determination regarding future acts if any negotiation party, except a native title party, has failed to negotiate in good faith prior to the application for the determination.

The Coppin case expanded upon the decision Walley v Western Australia (23)(Walley) which determined that until the Government party had negotiated in good faith, the National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) did not have jurisdiction to hear the government party's application for determination regarding future acts.

As at 3 June 2004, the Commonwealth was a party to 179 of the 620 native title applications filed with the Federal Court.31

even though the government had failed to perform its obligation to negotiate within a reasonable time - frame, and even though it was the native title parties who made the application, the NNTT did not have jurisdiction to make the determination until the government had negotiated in good faith.

8.4 That the Attorney - General prepare guidelines for the Federal Court and parties to native title proceedings on the application of Section 82 of the Native Titlnative title proceedings on the application of Section 82 of the Native TitlNative Title Act.

The Commonwealth participates in native title litigation either as a party with a property interest in the land affected by the claim, or as the administrator of the NTA with a policy interest in the Court's interpretation or application of the legislation to the claim before it.

This narrow interpretation «raises the bar even further for native title parties who seek to oppose applications [for arbitration] under s 35».

As at 1 June 2003, the Commonwealth was a party to 191 native title applications out of 620 in total.

Since the first native title claimant application was lodged by the Quandamooka Peoples in 1995, the process of resolving their native title required the claim group to decide who are the people in the native title claim group, who are the person or people that are the applicant, and negotiate with multiple parties about their native title rights and interests over North Stradbroke Island and some of the surrounding islands and waters of Morton Bay.

agreements between parties that set the groundwork for more substantive outcomes in the future and may lead to the resolution of native title determination applications, for example agreements on specific issues, process or frameworks; and

The readiness with which the Court inferred either the complete or the partial extinguishment of native title from the creation of rights in third parties in Miriuwung Gajerrong can be ascertained from a consideration of the Court's application of the inconsistency test in respect of particular tenures.

In every native title application proceeding the relevant State or Territory government will be the major respondent and the Commonwealth will often also play a major respondent party role.

In my view this definition will limit the number of unnecessary third party applications and decrease the time taken to resolve native title matters.

[16] For the sake of accuracy and consistency, it should be noted that a «native title claim group» is never a party to a native title application proceeding.

When notice of a native title claim is given, any person who, at the time the notice is given, holds a proprietary interest that is registered on a public register in relation to any of the area covered by the application has an automatic entitlement to become a party to the proceeding.

In my view, proceedings relating to native title determination applications have been unnecessarily overburdened by minor respondent parties, often funded by the Commonwealth pursuant to section 183 of the Act.

provide for the application of recent amendments to the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) to native title proceedings that began before 1 January 2009 and where evidence has been heard, if the parties consent or the Federal Court orders that it is in the interests of justice to do so [91]

The purpose of mediation by the National Native Title Tribunal (in a proceeding that does not involve a compensation application) is to assist the parties to reach agreement on some or all of the matters required for a determination of native Native Title Tribunal (in a proceeding that does not involve a compensation application) is to assist the parties to reach agreement on some or all of the matters required for a determination of native native title.

These include increased legal and administrative costs in processing native title claims and Registered Aboriginal Party applications, delays to land dealings caused by uncertainty about who are the «right people for country», delays in native title and cultural heritage outcomes for Traditional Owners, and ongoing conflict and division in Indigenous communities.

The principle of promptness should not operate at the expense of native title parties» right to have their objection to the application of the expedited procedure heard, especially where such a procedure removes a substantial right.

As at 1 June 2003, the Commonwealth was a party to 191 native title applications (out of 620 in total).

For native title applications in Victoria to be settled through mediation, agreement must be reached between the native title claimants and all other non-claimant parties about the merits of any single claim.

As a result of these changes a number of group recipients were advised that pursuant to s. 183 NTA their funding will be terminated unless they are directly involved as a party or future party in proceedings relating to particular native title applications.

The Native Title Act could provide that a person claiming that their interests are substantially affected must make an application to the Court before they can be joined as a party.

In the NNTT determination in the Roy Dixon case Franklin QC commented on the NNTT's exercise of its powers and functions when a native title party lodges an objection to a government party's application of the expedited procedure exception to the right to negotiate.

There are serious concerns that the Government's lodging of non-claimant applications are impacting on native title parties» procedural rights and causing extinguishment little by little in New South Wales.

The breach is more serious however in a legal context where there is no effective remedy for inappropriate applications of the expedited procedure exception and where no other protection is afforded for native title parties» right to effective participation.

There are also many cases where, after the native title party has had to prepare and lodge an objection to the expedited procedure, the tenement application has been withdrawn or the expedition notice dropped.

The Guidelines were controversial among native title parties because they went beyond the terms of the NTA and Regulations and included detailed information about what the NNTT would require before it would accept «objection applications».

However, as it currently stands, the heritage survey requirement only occurs at a point after the native title parties have had to waive their right to object to the application of the expedited procedure.

However, Franklin QC left open the question of the NNTT's jurisdiction to hear an objection application where the native title party did not fully satisfy these requirements.

[126] While it is encouraging that the NSW Government is applying the full right to negotiate process without exceptions to the issue of productive mining tenures, concerns remain about the impact on native title parties procedural rights of the Government's use of non-claimant applications.

While the Taskforce Paper was not specific, it appears that the recommendations envisaged that, in return for the enactment of a heritage survey agreement requirement, native title parties may be required to give up their statutory right to object when and if the expedited procedure is applied to exploration and prospecting licence applications.

Unopposed determination means a decision by the Federal Court or the High Court of Australia or a recognised body that native title does or does not exist as a result of a native title application that is not contested by another party.

The focus of the recommendations on the reduction of the «backlog» of mining license applications (and other future act applications), rather than the development of a long - term approach to the inclusion of native title rights within land management in Western Australia; The substitution of heritage agreements for more substantial negotiation with native title parties; and

Unopposed determination means a decision by the Federal Court or High Court of Australia or a recognised body that native title does or does not exist as a result of a native title application that is not contested by another party.