FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Edwards v Santos Limited [2009] FCA 1532
ABORIGINES - Application - Declarations - Injunction - Whether grant of a petroleum lease under the Petroleum Act 1923 (Qld) in respect of land claimed by "registered native title claimants" under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) is not a pre-existing rights based act within the meaning of the Native Title Act – Applicant the registered native title claimant - Whether Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application – Whether the application should be dismissed for want of reasonable prospects of success – Whether present proceeding would necessitate the determination of the existence or otherwise of native title rights of the Applicant in respect of the claimed land in the proceeding – No application for determination of native title in the proceeding – Whether the Applicants had standing to seek any of the relief claimed - Held no reasonable cause of action - Held application doomed to fail - Held proceeding did not relate to a “matter” – Held application merely a colourable attempt to invoke Federal jurisdiction – Held Applicants lacked standing – Held In any event, declaratory relief sought merely a “staging post” such that it was inappropriate to grant relief as a matter of discretion - Application dismissed
FEDERAL COURT – Jurisdiction – Whether there is a “matter” before the Court – Declarations sought – No immediate legal or practical consequences – Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39B(1A)(c)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 21, 23, 31A
Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ss 24AA, 24HA, 24IB, 24IC, 24ID, 24NA, 24OA, 25, 26, 28, 81, 85A, 213, 227, 233
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39BPetroleum Act 1923 (Qld)
Federal Court Rules O 11 r 16
Constitution s 76
Kowalski v MMAL Staff Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd (2009) 178 FCR 401 followed
White Industries Australia Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2007) 160 FCR 298 followed
The Lardil Peoples v Queensland (2001) 108 FCR 453 applied
Re Judiciary and Navigation Acts (1921) 29 CLR 257 applied
Australian Institute of Private Detectives Ltd v Privacy Commissioner (2004) 139 FCR 394 considered
Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 334 applied
Truth About Motorways Pty Ltd v Macquarie Infrastructure Investment Management Ltd (2000) 200 CLR 591 distinguished
Philip Morris Inc v Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 457 cited
Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1987) 18 FCR 212 cited
Fitzroy Motors Pty Ltd v Hyundai Automotive Distributors Australia Pty Ltd (1995) 133 ALR 445 cited
WG & B Manufacturing Pty Ltd v Tesla Farad Pty Ltd (1999) 48 IPR 111 cited
Cook v Pasminco Ltd (2000) 99 FCR 548 applied
Hopper v Egg and Egg Pulp Marketing Boardof Victoria (1939) 61 CLR 665 applied
Platypus Leasing Inc v Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) (2005) 189 FLR 411 followed
McKeown v Cavalier Yachts Pty Ltd (1988) 13 NSWLR 303 followedLane P, Lane’s Commentary on the Australian Constitution
Continue reading Edwards v Santos Limited
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Edwards v Santos Limited [2009] FCA 1532
- Case
- [2009] FCA 1532
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court was tasked with interpreting the terms of the contract between the parties, determining whether Santos Limited had fulfilled its obligations, and if not, assessing the consequences of such a breach. The central legal issue was the interpretation of specific clauses within the contract that governed the rights and duties of the parties. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether any representations made by Santos Limited during the negotiation and formation of the contract amounted to a binding promise.
The Court dismissed the application, finding that Santos Limited had not breached the contract. The Court held that the terms of the contract were clear and unambiguous, and that there was no evidence to suggest that Santos Limited had failed to meet its contractual obligations. Furthermore, the Court found that any representations made by Santos Limited were not of a binding nature and did not constitute additional contractual commitments.
No further orders were made by the Court. The dismissal of the application concluded the matter, leaving the existing contractual relationship between the parties unaffected.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Application is dismissed.
Note:
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
Established by: LOGAN J
Full text does not contain this section.