Edwards v Santos Limited (No 2) - [2010] FCA 238

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Edwards v Santos Limited (No 2) [2010] FCA 238

Citation: Edwards v Santos Limited (No 2) [2010] FCA 238

Parties: NOELENE MARGARET EDWARDS, CLANCY MCKELLAR, IONA DAWN SMITH, ERNEST (HOPE) EBSWORTH, ROSEMARY (ROSE) ANNE WILSON, MARGARET ANNE COLLINS, SHARLEEN LOUISE KNIGHT, ARCHIE ALFRED EBSWORTH v SANTOS LIMITED, STATE OF QUEENSLAND and DEHLI PETROLEUM PTY LIMITED

File number: QUD 86 of 2009

Judge: LOGAN J

Date of judgment: 17 March 2010

Catchwords: COSTS – Discretionary power to award costs under Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43 – Where native title questions involved – Whether the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 85A can be taken into account in the exercise of discretion to award costs – Held even though not directly applicable, “spirit” of s 85 relevant – Held that “spirit” did not displace usual rule that costs follow the event in circumstances where prior intermediate appellate authority highlighted a lack of standing and jurisdiction

Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43
Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 85A

Cases cited: Edwards v Santos Limited [2009] FCA 1532 cited
The Lardil Peoples v Queensland (2001) 108 FCR 453 cited
Fesl v Delegate of Native Title Registrar (No 2) (2008) 173 FCR 176 considered
The Lardil Peoples v Queensland [2001] FCA 464 cited

Date of hearing: 18 December 2009

Date of written submissions for the First and Third Respondents on costs: 20 January 2010

Date of written submissions for the Applicants on costs: 12 February 2010

Date of reply written submissions of the First and Third Respondents on costs: 18 February 2010

Place: Brisbane

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 10

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr J McCarthy QC

Solicitor for the Applicant: Eddy Neumann Lawyers

Counsel for the First and Third Respondents: Mr G Coveney

Solicitor for the First and Third Respondents: Blake Dawson

Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr G Del Villar

Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Crown Law

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

QUD 86 of 2009

BETWEEN:
NOELENE MARGARET EDWARDS, CLANCY MCKELLAR, IONA DAWN SMITH, ERNEST (HOPE) EBSWORTH, ROSEMARY (ROSE) ANNE WILSON, MARGARET ANNE COLLINS, SHARLEEN LOUISE KNIGHT, ARCHIE ALFRED EBSWORTH
Applicant

AND:
SANTOS LIMITED
First Respondent

STATE OF QUEENSLAND
Second Respondent

DEHLI PETROLEUM PTY LIMITED
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

LOGAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

17 MARCH 2010

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicants pay the first and third respondents’ costs of and incidental to the application, including the summary judgment application, to be taxed.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

QUD 86 of 2009

BETWEEN:
NOELENE MARGARET EDWARDS, CLANCY MCKELLAR, IONA DAWN SMITH, ERNEST (HOPE) EBSWORTH, ROSEMARY (ROSE) ANNE WILSON, MARGARET ANNE COLLINS, SHARLEEN LOUISE KNIGHT, ARCHIE ALFRED EBSWORTH
Applicant

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Edwards v Santos Limited (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] FCA 238
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia dealt with a case involving multiple applicants who sought to challenge the actions of Santos Limited, the State of Queensland, and Delhi Petroleum Pty Limited. The applicants, who were native title claimants, argued that the respondents' activities interfered with their traditional rights and interests. The case was dismissed by Justice Logan, and the respondents sought an order for costs under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. The applicants argued that the "spirit" of section 85A of the Native Title Act 1993 should be taken into account when considering the costs order, even though it had no direct application to the case. The court considered the matter and found that while the spirit of section 85A was relevant, it did not override the usual rule that costs follow the event, especially given the prior intermediate appellate authority that highlighted a lack of standing and jurisdiction. The court ultimately decided to exercise its discretion to award costs in the usual manner.

Justice Logan's reasoning was based on several factors, including the reasonableness of the applicants' conduct, the disparity of resources between the parties, and the public importance of the issues raised. The applicants were aware of the challenge to jurisdiction and chose not to join their application with a substantive native title application, despite the legal advice they had access to. The court found that the public interest in delineating the standing of the applicants and the jurisdiction of the court was not greater than that of the respondents in being able to conduct their business affairs without unnecessary litigation. Therefore, the court decided to award costs to the respondents and ordered the applicants to pay the costs of and incidental to the application, including the summary judgment application, to be taxed.

Orders