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:
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.
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
- AGLC
- Blackman on behalf of the Bailai, Gurang, Gooreng Gooreng, Taribelang Bunda People v State of Queensland (No 2) [2017] FCA 1622
- Case
- [2017] FCA 1622
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicants should be joined as respondents in the native title proceeding. The applicants argued that their rights and interests were directly affected by the claims made in the proceeding, and therefore, they should be permitted to participate in the case. The State of Queensland and McBrides Holdings Pty Ltd opposed the application, contending that the applicants' claims were not relevant to the native title dispute and that their inclusion would unnecessarily complicate the proceedings.
The Court considered the principles of joinder of parties in native title cases and the relevance of the applicants' claims to the proceeding. The Court found that the applicants' claims were not directly related to the native title claims made in the proceeding and that their inclusion would not be in the interest of justice. The Court concluded that the application should be dismissed, as the applicants' rights and interests could be adequately protected through other means, and their participation was not necessary to ensure a fair and efficient resolution of the case.
The Court dismissed the interlocutory application filed by McBrides Holdings Pty Ltd on 2 November 2017, and no orders were made for the applicants to be joined as respondents in the native title proceeding. The decision was made in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, which governs the entry of orders in such cases. The Court's ruling ensures that the native title proceeding will proceed without the involvement of the applicants, allowing the Court to focus on the specific claims and issues at hand.
Orders
Orders of the court
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.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.