Harradine v State of Victoria

[2013] FCA 1458

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Harradine v State of Victoria [2013] FCA 1458

Citation:	Harradine v State of Victoria [2013] FCA 1458
Parties:	FREDERICK RALPH HARRADINE and LATJI LATJI PEOPLE  v STATE OF VICTORIA and others named in the schedule
File number:	VID 6003 of 2000
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:			8
Counsel for the Applicant:			Mr T Kelly
Solicitor for the Applicant:			J N Zigouras & Co Lawyers
Solicitor for the State of Victoria:			Ms M Scalzo of the Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office
Solicitor for the Commonwealth:			Mr C Rawson of the Australian Government Solicitor
Solicitor for Telstra:			Ms M Barnett-Smith of Ashurst Australia

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	VID 6003 of 2000

BETWEEN:	FREDERICK RALPH HARRADINE ON BEHALF OF THE LATJI LATJI PEOPLE Applicant
AND:	STATE OF VICTORIA and others named in the schedule Respondent

JUDGE:	NORTH J
DATE OF ORDER:	17 DECEMBER 2013
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application is dismissed.

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 6003 of 2000

BETWEEN:	FREDERICK RALPH HARRADINE ON BEHALF OF THE LATJI LATJI PEOPLE Applicant
AND:	STATE OF VICTORIA and others named in the schedule Respondent

JUDGE:	NORTH J
DATE:	17 DECEMBER 2013
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This application for a determination of native title concerns an area of land in the north-west of the State of Victoria.  It has had a long history.  It was filed on 19 July 2000. 

2. By 2005 the applicant and the State of Victoria were in the process of negotiating an Indigenous Land Use Agreement. These negotiations were stalled, like many others at the time, whilst the State developed an alternative framework for the settlement of indigenous land claims which was embodied ultimately in the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 (Vic) (TOSA). 

3. As time went on, the resolution of the application was further interrupted by a boundary dispute between the Latji Latji people, applicants for a determination of native title, and claimants in the Robinvale area which was filed in 2006.  That issue prevented progress until 2012 when the Robinvale application was discontinued.  In that period no meaningful settlement negotiations between the applicant and the State occurred. 

4. Early in 2013, Native Title Services Victoria (NTSV) were engaged to represent the Latji Latji people. In the course of directions hearings held in 2013, the Court was told that research was underway to explore the possibility of a wider north-west regional claim which would include the current Latji Latji application area and the Latji Latji people.  The Court was also told in these directions hearings that it was intended that the new claim would subsume the existing Latji Latji application.  This intention is confirmed by the written parties’ report filed in connection with the present directions hearing. 

5. It follows that the Latji Latji application has exhausted its utility and that the applicant does not seek to agitate the application independently of the possible new north-west claim. 

6. Some greater certainty has been given to the potential of the new claim.  Mr Kelly, who appeared on behalf of the Latji Latji people said that it is intended that next year an application for a determination of native title in the north-west region of Victoria will be filed or alternatively, a threshold statement under the TOSA for that area will be filed. 

7. At various stages when the progress of this application stalled, the Court indicated to the parties that it would not stand by and see an application remain in the Court process unless there was a realistic chance that the applicant could prosecute the application to a hearing.  It is now clear that it is not the wish of the Latji Latji people to pursue this application separately, but rather to replace it with a wider claim including other peoples of the area. 

8. Consequently, it is appropriate that the application be struck out.  The active respondents in the process before the Court have been the State of Victoria and the Commonwealth.  Neither opposes the application nor makes any claim for additional orders.  As there are no other active participants before the Court, it is appropriate that the orders sought be made and the application be struck out.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice North.

Associate:

Dated:        10 February 2014

Schedule of Respondents

Respondent:  SUNRAYSIA RURAL WATER AUTHORITY

Respondent:  BULOKE SHIRE COUNCIL

Respondent:  LOWER MURRAY REGION WATER AUTHORITY

Respondent:  J M MCLEAN

Respondent:  A E MCLEAN

Respondent:  COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Respondent:  WILD SIDE PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISE

Respondent:  WIMMERA MALLEE RURAL WATER AUTHORITY

Respondent:  GRAMPIANS REGION WATER AUTHORITY

Respondent:  SWAN HILL RURAL CITY COUNCIL

Respondent:  YARRIAMBIACK SHIRE COUNCIL

Respondent:  POWERCOR AUSTRALIA LIMITED

Respondent:  KAREN ANNE O'CALLAGHAN

Respondent:  DANIEL JAMES CONLAN

Respondent:  JAMES KEVIN O'CALLAGHAN

Respondent:  TERENCE JOHN LOGAN

Respondent:  MAUREEN JUDITH LOGAN

Respondent:  MOWAT BROS

Respondent:  CHEETHAM SALT LTD

Respondent:  MARK SMITH (WEMEN) PTY LTD

Respondent:  ACUTT HOLDINGS PTY LTD

Respondent:  TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED

Respondent:  STUART DUNCAN HARRIS

Respondent:  ROBINVALE ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY NATIVE TITLE CLAIM GROUP

Respondent:  COLIN ON BEHALF OF THE FAR WEST ANGLERS' ASSOCIATION MANSEL