Briggs on behalf of the Boonwurrung People v State of Victoria [2024] FCA 288

Briggs on behalf of the Boonwurrung People v State of Victoria [2024] FCA 288

Application to adduce further expert evidence and re-open after judgment reserved was refused because there were no exceptional circumstances, proposed evidence was not shown to be material or likely to affect the result, was not fresh evidence, and reopening would cause delay, inefficiency, and prejudice contrary to interests of justice and overarching purpose under s 37M. The applicants acted unreasonably and were ordered to pay the Wurundjeri respondents' costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Native Title Interlocutory Application / Application to Adduce Additional Expert Evidence After Judgment Reserved
Outcome
Application refused, costs ordered against applicants
Legal Topics
['reopening After Judgment Reserved' 'expert Evidence' 'finality of Litigation' 'costs in Native Title Proceedings']
['native Title' 'civil Procedure'] ['reopening After Judgment Reserved' 'expert Evidence' 'finality of Litigation' '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 Interlocutory Application / Application to Adduce Additional Expert Evidence After Judgment Reserved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to adduce further expert evidence and re-open the case after judgment reserved' 'Whether interests of justice require reopening' "Whether proposed evidence was 'fresh', 'exceptional circumstances', or would materially affect the result" "Whether applicants' conduct justifies departure from usual costs rule in native title"]

Ratio Decidendi

Application to adduce further expert evidence and re-open after judgment reserved was refused because there were no exceptional circumstances, proposed evidence was not shown to be material or likely to affect the result, was not fresh evidence, and reopening would cause delay, inefficiency, and prejudice contrary to interests of justice and overarching purpose under s 37M. The applicants acted unreasonably and were ordered to pay the Wurundjeri respondents' costs.

Court Disposition

Application refused, costs ordered against applicants

Orders

  • ["The Applicant's interlocutory application dated 22 February 2024 be refused." 'The Applicants pay the costs of the Wurundjeri respondents to be taxed in default of agreement.']