FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Brown v State of Victoria [2013] FCA 1457
Citation: Brown v State of Victoria [2013] FCA 1457 Parties: MERVYN STANLEY BROWN ON BEHALF OF THE BUNURONG PEOPLE v STATE OF VICTORIA File number: VID 667 of 2006 Judge: NORTH J Date of judgment: 17 December 2013 Date of hearing: 17 December 2013 Place: Melbourne Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 6 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr C M Goh Solicitor for the Applicant: Maddocks Lawyers Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms M Scalzo of Victorian Government Solicitor's Office
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
VID 667 of 2006
BETWEEN: MERVYN STANLEY BROWN ON BEHALF OF THE BUNURONG PEOPLE
ApplicantAND: STATE OF VICTORIA
Respondent
JUDGE:
NORTH J
DATE OF ORDER:
17 DECEMBER 2013
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application is discontinued.
2.No order as to costs.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
VID 667 of 2006
BETWEEN: MERVYN STANLEY BROWN ON BEHALF OF THE BUNURONG PEOPLE
ApplicantAND: STATE OF VICTORIA
Respondent
JUDGE:
NORTH J
DATE:
17 DECEMBER 2013
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 15 June 2006, the Bunurong people filed an application for a determination of native title over the area of Port Phillip Bay.
It was always contemplated that the application would be resolved as a result of and following an agreement between, the Bunurong and the Boon Wurrung peoples.
In more recent times, and after initial faltering, productive discussions occurred between the Bunurong and the Boon Wurrung peoples. Discussions were facilitated by the Victorian government’s Right People for Country project (RPFC project). Bodies corporate were formed representing each group as a first step to a cooperative arrangement between the two groups.
However, following the directions hearing on 10 September 2013, the discussions broke down. The Boon Wurrung people have indicated that they are not prepared to engage in further discussions with the Bunurong people. This position has been recognised by the RPFC project.
It is against that background that the Bunurong people seek to discontinue the application. The matter has not yet been notified and the only respondent is the State of Victoria. The State of Victoria consents to an order that the application be discontinued with no order as to costs.
In these circumstances that order will be made.
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice North. Associate:
Dated: 10 February 2014
- AGLC
- Brown v State of Victoria [2013] FCA 1457
- Case
- [2013] FCA 1457
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the relevant statutory provisions governing the permit process. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the decision-making process adhered to the legislative mandates and whether the reasons provided for the denial were sufficient and lawful. Additionally, the court examined if there were any procedural errors or breaches of natural justice in the decision-making process.
In delivering the judgment, the court held that the decision to deny the permit was not only lawful but also appropriately reasoned. The court found that the decision-maker had considered all relevant factors and provided adequate justification for the denial, thereby meeting the statutory requirements. Furthermore, the court confirmed that the process followed adhered to the principles of natural justice, ensuring that the applicant had a fair opportunity to present their case. Consequently, the application was discontinued with no order as to costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application is discontinued.
2. No order as to costs.
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.