QGC Pty Limited v Alberts (No 5) [2024] FCA 139

QGC Pty Limited v Alberts (No 5) [2024] FCA 139

B&M had standing through its voluntary administrator to seek payment of the funds held by the Court because its entitlement to the present funds had crystallised before it entered administration and those funds were its property. B&M's later administration meant it could not claim future funds as a continuing Nominated Entity, but did not defeat its entitlement to the present funds. The Court declined to declare DUAC the substituted Nominated Entity because no live dispute requiring determination was apparent, QGC's position was not supported by evidence before the Court, and a possible dispute remained between former B&M directors and DUAC directors.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Native Title Proceeding Concerning an Indigenous Land Use Agreement / Interlocutory Applications for Joinder, Payment Out of Funds Held by the Court, and Related Orders
Outcome
Daylight Interested Parties joined; B&M's interlocutory application granted; Daylight Interested Parties' substantive application dismissed; each of B&M and the Daylight Interested Parties to bear their own costs.
Legal Topics
['indigenous Land Use Agreement' 'nominated Entity' 'joinder of Interested Parties' 'payment of Funds Paid Into Court' 'voluntary Administration' '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

Native Title Proceeding Concerning an Indigenous Land Use Agreement / Interlocutory Applications for Joinder, Payment Out of Funds Held by the Court, and Related Orders

  1. 1 ['Whether the Daylight Interested Parties should be joined as interested parties under r 9.05 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' 'Whether B&M Aboriginal Corporation, being in voluntary administration, had standing to seek payment of funds held by the Court pursuant to earlier orders.' "Whether funds held by the Court for B&M Aboriginal Corporation had crystallised as B&M's property before the commencement of voluntary administration." 'Whether Daylight United Aboriginal Corporation should be declared the substituted Nominated Entity and replace B&M Aboriginal Corporation in Order 3(b)(iv) of the orders made by Rares J.' 'What costs order should be made on the interlocutory applications.']

Ratio Decidendi

B&M had standing through its voluntary administrator to seek payment of the funds held by the Court because its entitlement to the present funds had crystallised before it entered administration and those funds were its property. B&M's later administration meant it could not claim future funds as a continuing Nominated Entity, but did not defeat its entitlement to the present funds. The Court declined to declare DUAC the substituted Nominated Entity because no live dispute requiring determination was apparent, QGC's position was not supported by evidence before the Court, and a possible dispute remained between former B&M directors and DUAC directors.

Court Disposition

Daylight Interested Parties joined; B&M's interlocutory application granted; Daylight Interested Parties' substantive application dismissed; each of B&M and the Daylight Interested Parties to bear their own costs.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to r 9.05 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), Margaret Hornagold, Christine Malone, Dorothy Daylight, Brent Daylight, Chereta Daylight and the Daylight United Aboriginal Corporation (ICN 10168) be joined as interested parties.' 'Orders 1 and 2 of the Orders of the Court made on 2 March 2023 be set...