Akiba v Queensland

In Akiba v Queensland, the parties involved were the Torres Strait Regional Seas Authority (TSRA), the Torres Strait Regional Authority, and Mr. Gamogab, a respondent with an interest in protecting and advancing traditional rights within the s 61 application. The dispute centred around the issuance of a subpoena by Mr. Gamogab seeking a report, which the TSRA argued was irrelevant and sought to set aside on various grounds. The court was tasked with deciding whether Mr. Gamogab's pursuit of the subpoena was for an improper purpose and whether the TSRA was entitled to costs under section 85A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976.

The court examined whether the report in question was relevant to the s 61 application and if Mr. Gamogab's actions were justified under the circumstances. The court concluded that the report, although commissioned for treaty inclusion, could contain evidence pertinent to Mr. Gamogab's interest in the s 61 application. The court also considered the TSRA's claim that Mr. Gamogab acted for an improper purpose, but found that the actions were within the scope of the application and did not amount to an improper use of the legal process.

Regarding the TSRA's claim for costs under section 85A, the court noted that the TSRA incurred expenses in responding to the subpoena and contesting its validity. The court held that the TSRA was entitled to costs associated with complying with the subpoena and preparing for the motion to set aside the subpoena, but not for the costs of filing and maintaining the notice of motion. The court's decision was based on the principle that each party must bear their own costs unless it is appropriate to order otherwise, considering the totality of the circumstances.