Goldfields Land and Sea Council Aboriginal Corporation v Minister for Indigenous Affairs

The Goldfields Land and Sea Council Aboriginal Corporation sought an interlocutory injunction pending the outcome of its substantive judicial review application. The applicant was previously the recognised native title representative body for the Goldfields region of Western Australia. The Minister for Indigenous Affairs decided not to invite the applicant to apply for recognition as the representative body for a further period. The applicant was provided with funding on a transitional basis to provide native title services. That funding ceased on 30 June 2019. The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister's decision not to invite the applicant to apply for recognition, and of the decision of the Minister's delegate to cease funding the applicant. The applicant sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent execution of a funding agreement with a third party pending the outcome of the substantive judicial review application.

The court was required to determine whether the balance of convenience favoured the applicant. The court considered the position of the applicant, the Minister, the third party, and the native title claimants in the Goldfields region. The applicant was in a parlous financial state and may be wound up with significant consequences. The Minister's decision not to invite the applicant to apply for recognition and to cease funding the applicant was made to avoid disruption to service delivery to native title holders and claimants. The third party had already secured the services of a principal legal officer and for a limited contractual term. The native title claimants in the Goldfields region were likely to be left unrepresented until February 2020 if an injunction was granted.

The court held that the balance of convenience did not favour the applicant. The court was concerned about the impact on other third parties to the proceedings, including the third party and persons who may be employed by the third party. The court was also concerned as to the position of the native title claimants who were in the course of prosecuting their native title claims and were highly likely to be left unrepresented until February 2020 if an injunction was granted. The court was not satisfied that alternative arrangements for legal representation could be put in place in a timely manner. The suggestion that alternative arrangements could be put in place in a timely manner was speculative.

The applicant's application for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed. The court ordered that the name of the barrister who sent an email included in an affidavit filed by the applicant was suppressed and may not be published. The court also ordered that no person other than a party to the proceeding or their legal advisors may inspect any of the affidavits or submissions filed in this proceeding. Costs were reserved.