Corunna v South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council

The case of Corunna v South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council involved an application by Mr Corunna, a member of an unregistered native title claim group, to challenge the authorisation process for proposed Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs) with the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council (SWALSC) and the State. Mr Corunna sought a declaration that he was entitled to participate in the authorisation process for the ILUAs, despite not being a registered native title claimant and not being a party to the proposed agreements. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether Mr Corunna's objection to the registration of the proposed ILUAs was premature and whether he had a reasonable prospect of success in his originating application.

The legal issues before the Court included whether the objections raised by Mr Corunna regarding the proposed ILUAs could be entertained at that stage, given that the agreements had not yet been formally made or registered. Additionally, the Court had to assess whether Mr Corunna, as a member of an unregistered native title claim group, had the right to object to the registration of the proposed ILUAs under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The Court concluded that Mr Corunna's objection was premature, as the legal issues he raised were hypothetical and the relevant agreement-making and registration procedures were incomplete. The Court further determined that Mr Corunna had no reasonable prospect of success in his application, as it was a question of law that could be resolved without considering disputed facts.

The Court dismissed Mr Corunna's originating application, finding that he had no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding. It was held that the Court should not entertain questions about native title rights and authorisation of the ILUAs at that time. The Court granted summary judgment in favour of SWALSC and the State, dismissing Mr Corunna's application. The Court noted that unless SWALSC pressed for a costs order, there would be no order as to costs on its interlocutory application. If SWALSC did seek costs, the Court would hear oral submissions on the costs question on a date to be fixed.

The Court made several orders, including dismissing the applicant's originating application, providing that there would be no order as to costs unless SWALSC applied for a costs order, and setting a deadline for SWALSC to indicate its intention to seek costs. The Court also scheduled a date for oral submissions if costs were to be contested.