Fourmile on behalf of the Gimuy Walubara Yidinji People v State of Queensland [2018] FCA 572

Fourmile on behalf of the Gimuy Walubara Yidinji People v State of Queensland [2018] FCA 572

The interlocutory application to strike out the main application failed because it was not clearly established, on the evidence taken at its highest for interlocutory stage, that the claim group had not been properly authorised or described under s 61 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth); any alleged defects in the authorisation process or notice were not sufficient to warrant summary dismissal, and in the alternative, even if a defect existed, the Court should exercise its discretion under s 84D to determine the application despite the defect; no unreasonable conduct was established to justify a departure from the usual costs rule.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application (native Title) / Determination of Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Main Application
Outcome
Interlocutory application to strike out dismissed; alternatively, Court will determine application despite defect in authorisation; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['strike Out Application' 'authorisation of Native Title Applications' 'procedure Under the Native Title Act 1993 (cth)' 'defects in Authorisation' 'summary Dismissal' 'costs in Native Title Proceedings']
['native Title' 'civil Procedure'] ['strike Out Application' 'authorisation of Native Title Applications' 'procedure Under the Native Title Act 1993 (cth)' 'defects in Authorisation' 'summary Dismissal' 'costs in Native Title Proceedings']

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

Interlocutory Application (native Title) / Determination of Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Main Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the native title determination application complied with s 61 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) regarding group authorisation' 'Whether alleged defects in notice and authorisation process warranted striking out the application' 'Whether the Court should determine the application despite possible defect in authorisation under s 84D' 'Whether unreasonable conduct warranted costs order']

Ratio Decidendi

The interlocutory application to strike out the main application failed because it was not clearly established, on the evidence taken at its highest for interlocutory stage, that the claim group had not been properly authorised or described under s 61 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth); any alleged defects in the authorisation process or notice were not sufficient to warrant summary dismissal, and in the alternative, even if a defect existed, the Court should exercise its discretion under s 84D to determine the application despite the defect; no unreasonable conduct was established to justify a departure from the usual costs rule.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application to strike out dismissed; alternatively, Court will determine application despite defect in authorisation; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory application dated 6 October 2017 to strike out the main application is dismissed.' 'Alternatively, the Court will hear and determine the main application, despite any defect in authorisation.' 'Each party bear their own costs.']