Walmbaar Aboriginal Corporation v State of Queensland [2009] FCA 579

Walmbaar Aboriginal Corporation v State of Queensland [2009] FCA 579

The decision to commence the compensation proceeding was a decision "regarding native title" for the purposes of Rule 9(1) of Walmbaar's Rules and therefore required notice to all common law holders and consent of 75% of them. Walmbaar did not prove compliance with that process; the Committee could not act independently of Rule 9; and Walmbaar thereby failed to comply with its Rules and its functions under s 57(3)(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) and Regulation 7(1) of the Native Title (Prescribed Bodies Corporate) Regulations 1999 (Cth). The proceeding was commenced without authority and in contravention of the Act, and the application was dismissed under s 84C. To the extent the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Native Title Compensation Application Under Ss 50(2) and 61(1) of the Native Title Act 1993 (cth) / Notice of Motion by Indigenous Respondents Seeking Dismissal of the Compensation Application
Outcome
The compensation application filed on 28 November 2006 was dismissed; costs were reserved.
Legal Topics
['registered Native Title Body Corporate' 'prescribed Body Corporate Authority' 'compensation Determination' 'authorisation and Consultation of Common Law Holders' 'dismissal Under S 84 C of the Native Title Act 1993 (cth)' 'native Title (prescribed Bodies Corporate) Regulations 1999 (cth)']
['native Title' 'administrative and Procedural Law' 'corporations and Associations'] ['registered Native Title Body Corporate' 'prescribed Body Corporate Authority' 'compensation Determination' 'authorisation and Consultation of Common Law Holders' 'dismissal Under S 84 C of the Native Title Act 1993 (cth)' 'native Title (prescribed Bodies Corporate) Regulations 1999 (cth)']

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 Compensation Application Under Ss 50(2) and 61(1) of the Native Title Act 1993 (cth) / Notice of Motion by Indigenous Respondents Seeking Dismissal of the Compensation Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Walmbaar Aboriginal Corporation had authority to commence the compensation application as registered native title body corporate and agent for the Dingaal People.' 'Whether a decision to commence a native title compensation application was a decision "regarding native title" under Rule 9(1) of Walmbaar\'s Rules requiring notice to all common law holders and consent of 75% of them.' 'Whether a decision to commence a compensation application was a "native title decision" under Regulation 8(1) of the Native Title (Prescribed Bodies Corporate) Regulations 1999 (Cth).' 'Whether Walmbaar complied with its functions under s 57(3)(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) and Regulation 7(1) of the Native Title (Prescribed Bodies Corporate) Regulations 1999 (Cth).' 'Whether the compensation application could extend beyond the land and waters covered by the Hopevale determination.' 'Whether the application should be dismissed under s 84C of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

The decision to commence the compensation proceeding was a decision "regarding native title" for the purposes of Rule 9(1) of Walmbaar's Rules and therefore required notice to all common law holders and consent of 75% of them. Walmbaar did not prove compliance with that process; the Committee could not act independently of Rule 9; and Walmbaar thereby failed to comply with its Rules and its functions under s 57(3)(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) and Regulation 7(1) of the Native Title (Prescribed Bodies Corporate) Regulations 1999 (Cth). The proceeding was commenced without authority and in contravention of the Act, and the application was dismissed under s 84C. To the extent the...

Court Disposition

The compensation application filed on 28 November 2006 was dismissed; costs were reserved.

Orders

  • ['The application filed on 28 November 2006 is dismissed.' 'The costs of and incidental to the Notice of Motion filed by the indigenous respondents on 22 August 2008 are reserved.' 'The costs of the proceeding are reserved.' 'Should the applicant on the motion seek costs against Gordon Charlie in relation to the...