Kemppi v Adani Mining Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 105

Kemppi v Adani Mining Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 105

None of the alleged errors in the primary judgment warrant reconsideration by a Full Court; the applicant has not established sufficient doubt or likelihood of substantial injustice, and there is no House v The King error.

Parties
First Applicant: Delia Kemppi; Second Applicant: Lester Barnard; Third Applicant: Lyndell Turbane; Fourth Applicant: Adrian Burragubba; Fifth Applicant: Linda Bobongie; First Respondent: Adani Mining Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Queensland South Native Title Services; Third Respondent: State of Queensland; Fourth Respondent: Native Title Registrar
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal From Dismissal of Interlocutory Injunction; Orders Made
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; application to continue previous order dismissed
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Injunction, Discretionary Decision, Native Title Extinguishment
Practice and Procedure Native Title Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Injunction Discretionary Decision Native Title Extinguishment

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Delia Kemppi

First Applicant

Lester Barnard

Second Applicant

Lyndell Turbane

Third Applicant

Adrian Burragubba

Fourth Applicant

Linda Bobongie

Fifth Applicant

Adani Mining Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Queensland South Native Title Services

Second Respondent

State of Queensland

Third Respondent

Native Title Registrar

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal From Dismissal of Interlocutory Injunction; Orders Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal from dismissal of interlocutory injunction should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the primary decision was attended by sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration
  3. 3 Whether substantial injustice would result if leave were refused

Ratio Decidendi

None of the alleged errors in the primary judgment warrant reconsideration by a Full Court; the applicant has not established sufficient doubt or likelihood of substantial injustice, and there is no House v The King error.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; application to continue previous order dismissed

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal filed on 5 February 2018 is dismissed.
  • The application to continue the order made on 18 December 2017 is dismissed and that order is hereby vacated.