Gurubana Gunggandji People v Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority [1999] FCA 202

Gurubana Gunggandji People v Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority [1999] FCA 202

The injunction was refused because, although a serious issue was not contested, the likely effects of restraining permit issue, including delay and practical impacts on permit applicants, outweighed the unknown and unproven likelihood of damage to any established native title interests; many applications were renewals of existing activities, review mechanisms existed after grant, and the applicants had not offered the usual undertaking as to damages.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 February 1999
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Concerning Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Permits and Native Title Notification / Interlocutory Application for Injunction
Outcome
Application for injunction refused; costs ordered against Stewart Harris and Eston Sinclair Harris.
Legal Topics
['procedural Fairness' 'native Title Claimant Notification' 'marine Park Permits' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'costs']
['administrative Law' 'native Title' 'environmental Law'] ['procedural Fairness' 'native Title Claimant Notification' 'marine Park Permits' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'costs']

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

Judicial Review Concerning Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Permits and Native Title Notification / Interlocutory Application for Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an interlocutory injunction should restrain the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority from issuing permits pending the judicial review application.' 'Whether the applicants had a serious issue concerning the content of notices and opportunity to comment under s 24HA(7) of the Native Title Act 1993.' 'Whether the balance of likely effects warranted restraining the issue of permits where consequences for native title interests were unknown and delay could affect permit applicants.' 'Whether the absence of an undertaking as to damages weighed against granting the injunction.']

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction was refused because, although a serious issue was not contested, the likely effects of restraining permit issue, including delay and practical impacts on permit applicants, outweighed the unknown and unproven likelihood of damage to any established native title interests; many applications were renewals of existing activities, review mechanisms existed after grant, and the applicants had not offered the usual undertaking as to damages.

Court Disposition

Application for injunction refused; costs ordered against Stewart Harris and Eston Sinclair Harris.

Orders

  • ['The application for injunction be refused.' "The applicants, Stewart Harris and Eston Sinclair Harris, pay the respondent's costs of the motion."]