FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Bill v Northern Land Council [2018] FCA 1823
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Bill v Northern Land Council and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2018] FCA 1823
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Bill v Northern Land Council, the applicants sought various procedural orders, including leave to amend their originating application and statement of claim, to constitute the action as a representative proceeding, and for summary dismissal of the proceedings. The dispute centred on the applicants' claims against the respondent, the Northern Land Council, which had been established under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 (Cth). The applicants argued that the respondent had failed to properly exercise its powers under the Act, resulting in alleged actionable loss. The court was required to decide whether the applicants had a reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting their claims and whether the proceedings should be summarily dismissed.
The court considered the legal principles governing applications for summary dismissal under section 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and the relevant rules. It was established that summary dismissal was a serious step, only to be taken with great care and when there was no reasonable prospect of success. The court had to assess whether the applicants had a reasonable prospect of establishing actionable loss, considering both factual and legal arguments. The court also examined the applicants' request to strike out certain paragraphs of their statement of claim, as well as their applications for leave to amend the pleadings and to constitute the action as a representative proceeding.
The court concluded that the applicants had no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting their claims, as they would be unable to establish actionable loss. The court found that the applicants' claims were not well-founded, and therefore, the summary dismissal of the proceedings was appropriate. The court refused the applicants' requests for leave to amend the pleadings, to constitute the action as a representative proceeding, and to strike out certain paragraphs of their statement of claim. The court emphasised that the applicants' claims lacked merit and that the proceedings should be dismissed.
The court made orders dismissing the applicants' claims and denying their requests for procedural relief. Judgment was entered for the respondent, and the action was dismissed. The court's decision reflected its careful consideration of the legal principles and the evidence presented, ultimately concluding that the applicants' claims were not well-founded and did not warrant further proceedings.
The court considered the legal principles governing applications for summary dismissal under section 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and the relevant rules. It was established that summary dismissal was a serious step, only to be taken with great care and when there was no reasonable prospect of success. The court had to assess whether the applicants had a reasonable prospect of establishing actionable loss, considering both factual and legal arguments. The court also examined the applicants' request to strike out certain paragraphs of their statement of claim, as well as their applications for leave to amend the pleadings and to constitute the action as a representative proceeding.
The court concluded that the applicants had no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting their claims, as they would be unable to establish actionable loss. The court found that the applicants' claims were not well-founded, and therefore, the summary dismissal of the proceedings was appropriate. The court refused the applicants' requests for leave to amend the pleadings, to constitute the action as a representative proceeding, and to strike out certain paragraphs of their statement of claim. The court emphasised that the applicants' claims lacked merit and that the proceedings should be dismissed.
The court made orders dismissing the applicants' claims and denying their requests for procedural relief. Judgment was entered for the respondent, and the action was dismissed. The court's decision reflected its careful consideration of the legal principles and the evidence presented, ultimately concluding that the applicants' claims were not well-founded and did not warrant further proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Interlocutory Application of the Applicants filed on 21 May 2018 is wholly refused.
2. Judgment be entered for the Respondent pursuant to s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 26.01(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) and the action is dismissed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
The respondent seeks the summary dismissal of the proceedings pursuant to s 31A(2) of the FCA Act. Section 31A provides (relevantly):31A Summary judgment…(2)The Court may give judgment for one party against another in relation to the whole or any part of a proceeding if:(a)the first party is defending the proceeding or that part of the proceeding; and(b)the Court is satisfied that the other party has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding or that part of the proceeding.(3)For the purposes of this section, a defence or a proceeding or part of a proceeding need not be:(a) hopeless; or(b) bound to fail;for it to have no reasonable prospect of success.… The High Court discussed the application of s 31A in Spencer v Commonwealth [2010] HCA 28; (2010) 241 CLR 118. In addition, the proper approach has been discussed in a number of authorities in this Court. It is now established that the summary dismissal of a proceeding, and the consequent preclusion of litigants from having their case determined on its merits at a final hearing, is a serious step to be taken only with great care and when it is possible to conclude with confidence that there is no reasonable prospect of success: Danthanarayana v Commonwealth of Australia [2016] FCAFC 114 at [4]. This is so even though s 31A(2) does not depend on the case being characterised as “hopeless” or “bound to fail” in order for it to be found to have no reasonable prospect of success: Spencer at [17]‑[26]. When there is an arguable issue of fact or law on which the fate of a claim may turn, the action should be permitted to proceed to trial. Accordingly, a party who seeks summary judgment bears a heavy onus: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v FDRA Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 429 at [27], [29]. In relation to the striking out of particular paragraphs in the 2SC, the respondent relies upon r 16.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (the FCR). That rule provides (relevantly):16.21 Application to strike out pleadings(1)A party may apply to the Court for an order that all or part of a pleading be struck out on the ground that the pleading:(a) contains scandalous material; or…(c) is evasive or ambiguous; or(d)is likely to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay in the proceeding; or…(2)A party may apply for an order that the pleading be removed from the Court file if the pleading contains material of a kind mentioned in paragraph (1) (a), (b) or (c) or is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. In the recent decision in Sitzler Pty Ltd v GPT RE Limited as Responsible Entity of the General Property Trust [2018] FCA 1496, I referred at [8]‑[12] to principles which guide the Court’s approach to applications under r 16.21. It is not necessary presently to repeat what I said then. The functions of the NLC as a Land Council The ALRA established a regime for the grant of statutory rights in land to traditional Aboriginal owners in the Northern Territory. Aspects of the scheme and of the object of the ALRA are summarised in the reasons of French CJ in Wurridjal v Commonwealth of Australia [2009] HCA 2; (2009) 237 CLR 309 at [98]‑[102] and it is not necessary to repeat that summary. It is sufficient to note that the purpose of the ALRA is to confer some of the important benefits of ownership of land upon traditional Aboriginal owners.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.