Blackman on behalf of the Bailai, Gurang, Gooreng Gooreng, Taribelang Bunda People v State of Queensland (No 2)

Case

[2017] FCA 1622

14 November 2017


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Blackman on behalf of the Bailai, Gurang, Gooreng Gooreng, Taribelang Bunda People v State of Queensland (No 2) [2017] FCA 1622

File number: QUD 6026 of 2001
Judge: DOWSETT J
Date of judgment: 14 November 2017
Catchwords: NATIVE TITLE – application to be joined as a respondent – application dismissed.
Date of hearing: 10 and 14 November 2017
Registry: Queensland
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Native Title
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 2
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A McAvoy SC
Solicitor for the Applicant: Queensland South Native Title Services
Counsel for the State of Queensland: Ms E Longbottom
Solicitor for the State of Queensland: Crown Law
Counsel for McBrides Holdings Pty Ltd (the applicant in respect of interlocutory application filed on 2 November 2017): Mr A Preston
Solicitor for McBrides Holdings Pty Ltd (the applicant in respect of interlocutory application filed on 2 November 2017): Preston Law
Counsel for the Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 Respondents: The Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 Respondents did not appear

ORDERS

QUD 6026 of 2001
BETWEEN:

KERRY BLACKMAN ON BEHALF OF THE BAILAI, GURANG, GOORENG GOORENG, TARIBELANG BUNDA PEOPLE (and others named in the Schedule)

Applicant

AND:

STATE OF QUEENSLAND (and others named in the Schedule)

Respondent

JUDGE:

DOWSETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

14 NOVEMBER 2017

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.the interlocutory application filed by McBrides Holdings Pty Ltd on 2 November 2017 be dismissed.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

DOWSETT J:

  1. Insofar as concerns the question of public works, it seems to me that such issue can properly be resolved after the determination, without any prejudice to the interlocutory applicant.  As to the question of negotiations as between the traditional owners and the interlocutory applicant, I cannot see that the position will differ significantly after the determination from the present position.  In those circumstances, and given the lateness of the application, it is better that I refuse the application to be joined. 

  2. In reaching that conclusion, I have taken into account the fact that until quite recently, the interlocutory applicant was not aware of the problems which it faced with respect to the land on which it had built the house.  I accept that it took steps to remedy the situation and that, to some extent, the failure to achieve an earlier resolution of the matter was brought about by the failure of the applicant and its representative, Queensland South Native Title Services, to respond to correspondence for a period of six months.  Nonetheless, I cannot see that the prejudice to the interlocutory applicant of the determination proceeding is such as to justify my adjournment of it.  In those circumstances, the application will be refused.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett .

Associate: 

Dated:        11 January 2018


SCHEDULE OF PARTIES

QUD 6026 of 2001

Applicants

LURLEEN BLACKMAN

MATTHEW COOKE

NEVILLE JOHNSON

RICHARD JOHNSON

NATHANIEL MINNIECON

DEAN SARRA

Group 1 Respondents

(a)

BUNDABERG REGIONAL COUNCIL

(b)

GLADSTONE REGIONAL COUNCIL

(c)

NORTH BURNETT REGIONAL COUNCIL

Group 2 Respondents

(a)

ERGON ENERGY CORPORATION LIMITED

(b)

TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED

Group 3 Respondents

(a)

CEMENT AUSTRALIA (EXPLORATION) PTY LTD

(b)

CEMENT AUSTRALIA (QUEENSLAND) PTY LTD

(c)

ESSO AUSTRALIA RESOURCES PTY LTD as operator of the Rundle Joint Venture

(d)

JEMENA QUEENSLAND GAS PIPELINE (1) PTY LTD

(e)

JEMENA QUEENSLAND GAS PIPELINE (2) PTY LTD

(f)

RIO TINTO ALUMINIUM LIMITED

(g)

RTA YARWUN PTY LTD

Group 4 Respondents

(a)

CRAIG BAUER

(b)

DIANNE BAUER

(c)

GRAHAM CHARLES BAUER

(d)

CALLIOPE CATTLE CO

(e)

EDWARD ROY GOODY

(f)

THOMAS MARSHALL GOODY

(g)

VERNON IAN GOODY

(h)

GEORGE WILSON MACKAY

(i)

HUGH WALKER MACKAY

(j)

DAVID GRICE MARLAND

(k)

MICHAEL MCGUIRE

(l)

MONTE CHRISTO PTY LTD

Group 5 Respondents

(a)

BRIAN MAXWELL CRONIN

(b)

DARREN JOHN CRONIN

(c)

SELWYN MAXWELL CRONIN

(d)

REDTRAIL PTY LTD

(e)

JANENE RUTH SCOTT

(f)

DAVID ALEXANDER SCOTT

(g)

DAVID CHARLES ZUNKER

(h)

JUDITH ANN ZUNKER

(i)

KEVIN EARLSTON ZUNKER

(j)

SUSAN JUDITH ZUNKER

Group 6 Respondents

(a)

AIRSERVICES AUSTRALIA

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0