The Lardil, Kaiadilt, Yangkaal and Gangalidda Peoples v State of Queensland [2001] FCA 464

The Lardil, Kaiadilt, Yangkaal and Gangalidda Peoples v State of Queensland [2001] FCA 464

The appeal was dismissed because the proceedings before Cooper J were within the jurisdiction conferred by subs 213(2) of the Act, s 85A did not apply, and Cooper J's view that costs should follow the event was fairly open. The appellants' reasons for resisting appeal costs did not justify a contrary order because the proceedings misconceived their position under the Native Title Act and the State legislation issues urged on appeal were without substance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia / Judgment on Appeal and Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['costs of Appeal' 'costs Below' 'jurisdiction Under Subs 213(2) of the Act' 'application of S 85 A' 'costs Following the Event']
['native Title' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs of Appeal' 'costs Below' 'jurisdiction Under Subs 213(2) of the Act' 'application of S 85 A' 'costs Following the Event']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia / Judgment on Appeal and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings before Cooper J were within the jurisdiction conferred by subs 213(2) of the Act.' 'Whether s 85A applied to the proceedings.' 'Whether Cooper J misdirected himself as to the law in observing that there was no reason why costs should not follow the event.' 'Whether the appellants should pay the costs of the appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the proceedings before Cooper J were within the jurisdiction conferred by subs 213(2) of the Act, s 85A did not apply, and Cooper J's view that costs should follow the event was fairly open. The appellants' reasons for resisting appeal costs did not justify a contrary order because the proceedings misconceived their position under the Native Title Act and the State legislation issues urged on appeal were without substance.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' 'The appellants pay the costs of the appeal of the first, second and third respondents, such costs to be taxed.']