Croft v State of South Australia (Port Augusta Overlap Proceeding) [2019] FCA 249

Croft v State of South Australia (Port Augusta Overlap Proceeding) [2019] FCA 249

The interlocutory application was refused because the documents were subject not only to the Harman Undertaking but also to express consent orders restricting use and dissemination to the Lake Torrens Overlap Proceedings; those orders appeared directed to protecting confidential or secret native title material; the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Native Title Proceeding / Interlocutory Application by the Barngarla and Nukunu Filed on 11 February 2019 Seeking Leave to Use Six Documents in a Pending Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Interlocutory application refused.
Legal Topics
['harman Undertaking' 'use of Documents Produced in Earlier Proceedings' 'court Ordered Confidentiality Restrictions' 'summary Judgment' 'confidential and Secret Information in Native Title Proceedings']
['native Title' 'civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['harman Undertaking' 'use of Documents Produced in Earlier Proceedings' 'court Ordered Confidentiality Restrictions' 'summary Judgment' 'confidential and Secret Information in Native Title Proceedings']

Source-derived case record

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 / Interlocutory Application by the Barngarla and Nukunu Filed on 11 February 2019 Seeking Leave to Use Six Documents in a Pending Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether six documents filed in the Lake Torrens Overlap Proceedings should be available for use in the Barngarla and Nukunu summary judgment application in the Port Augusta Overlap Proceeding.' 'Whether the Court should vary or depart from restrictions imposed by orders made in the earlier proceedings and release the Barngarla and Nukunu from the Harman Undertaking.' 'Whether special circumstances or other sufficient reasons justified use of the documents in the later summary judgment application.']

Ratio Decidendi

The interlocutory application was refused because the documents were subject not only to the Harman Undertaking but also to express consent orders restricting use and dissemination to the Lake Torrens Overlap Proceedings; those orders appeared directed to protecting confidential or secret native title material; the proposed use could prejudice a party that produced material under that regime; relevance alone did not establish special circumstances and the applicants did not show the documents were critical to the summary judgment application; the application was belated and could disrupt the pending summary judgment timetable; not all parties to the earlier proceedings, including the...

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application refused.

Orders

  • ['The Interlocutory Application of the Barngarla and Nukunu filed on 11 February 2019 is refused.' 'The time fixed by Order 12 made on 27 November 2018 within which the Third Applicant and any respondent wishing to oppose the application for summary judgment is to file and serve written submissions, not exceeding 10...