Yalanji People v State of Queensland [2006] FCA 1103

Yalanji People v State of Queensland [2006] FCA 1103

There was no unreasonable stand taken by the applicant or basis for costs against it, as the circumstances reflected evolving attitudes and negotiations rather than unreasonable conduct; thus, no order for costs was made on the discontinuance.

Parties
Applicant: Yalanji People; First Respondent: State of Queensland; Second Respondent: Ergon Energy Corporation Limited; Third Respondent: Cook Shire Council; Fourth Respondent: Douglas Shire Council; Fifth Respondent: Telstra Corp Ltd; Sixth Respondent: Wujal Wujal Aboriginal Council; Seventh Respondent: Burungu Aboriginal Corporation; Eighth Respondent: Roderick William McLean; Ninth Respondent: Russell David O'Doherty; Tenth Respondent: Terry Anne Rogers; Eleventh Respondent: Odette Catherine Phillpot; Twelfth Respondent: Vernon John Goodyear; Thirteenth Respondent: Kevin John Brandt; Fourteenth Respondent: Arnfried Brendecke; Fifteenth Respondent: Robert Harlow; Sixteenth Respondent: Andrew Marshall
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Native Title Proceeding / Costs Application Following Discontinuance of Motion
Outcome
No order as to costs on the discontinuance of the amended notice of motion filed on 21 January 2005.
Legal Topics
Costs, Discontinuance, Party Joinder
Native Title Civil Procedure Costs Discontinuance Party Joinder

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yalanji People

Applicant

State of Queensland

First Respondent

Ergon Energy Corporation Limited

Second Respondent

Cook Shire Council

Third Respondent

Douglas Shire Council

Fourth Respondent

Telstra Corp Ltd

Fifth Respondent

Wujal Wujal Aboriginal Council

Sixth Respondent

Burungu Aboriginal Corporation

Seventh Respondent

Roderick William McLean

Eighth Respondent

Russell David O'Doherty

Ninth Respondent

Terry Anne Rogers

Tenth Respondent

Odette Catherine Phillpot

Eleventh Respondent

Vernon John Goodyear

Twelfth Respondent

Kevin John Brandt

Thirteenth Respondent

Arnfried Brendecke

Fourteenth Respondent

Robert Harlow

Fifteenth Respondent

Andrew Marshall

Sixteenth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Native Title Proceeding / Costs Application Following Discontinuance of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded upon discontinuance of the applicant's amended notice of motion against the Cow Bay Respondents

Ratio Decidendi

There was no unreasonable stand taken by the applicant or basis for costs against it, as the circumstances reflected evolving attitudes and negotiations rather than unreasonable conduct; thus, no order for costs was made on the discontinuance.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs on the discontinuance of the amended notice of motion filed on 21 January 2005.

Orders

  • There be no order for costs consequent upon the discontinuance by the applicant of the amended notice of motion filed on 21 January 2005.