Kemppi v State of Queensland

Case [2017] FCA 902


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Kemppi v State of Queensland [2017] FCA 902

Appeal from: Application for leave to appeal: Burragubba on behalf of the Wangan and Jagalingou People v State of Queensland [2017] FCA 373
File number(s): QUD 219 of 2017
Judge(s): JAGOT J
Date of judgment: 4 August 2017
Catchwords: NATIVE TITLE – application for leave to appeal– whether decision of primary judge attended by sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration – whether the applicant would suffer substantial injustice if leave to appeal were refused – leave refused
Legislation: Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 66B
Cases cited:

Burragubba on behalf of the Wangan and Jagalingou People v State of Queensland [2017] FCA 373

House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499

Date of hearing: 4 August 2017
Registry: Queensland
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Native Title
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 18
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr D Yarrow
Solicitor for the Applicant: Just Us Lawyers
Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr G Del Villar
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Crown Law
Counsel for the Third Respondent: Ms CJ Klease with Ms J Macdonald
Solicitor for the Third Respondent: The Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for Intervening Parties: Mr KA Barlow QC
Solicitor for Intervening Parties: King & Wood Mallesons
Counsel for Mr Tim Wishart Mr AM Preston
Table of Corrections
17 August 2017 The citation Burragubba on behalf of the Wangan and Jagalingou People v State of Queensland [2017] FCA 373 has been corrected in the ‘Appeal from’ and ‘Cases cited’ fields on the cover page and in [1] of the Reasons.
17 August 2017 In the appearances on the cover page, the Counsel for the Third Respondent and Counsel for the Intervening Parties have been corrected.

ORDERS

QUD 219 of 2017
BETWEEN:

DELIA KEMPPI

First Applicant

LESTER BARNARD

Second Applicant

GARY SALTNER FISHER (and others named in the Schedule)

Third Applicant

AND:

STATE OF QUEENSLAND

First Respondent

ADRIAN BURRAGUBBA & ORS ON BEHALF OF THE WANGAN AND JAGALINGOU PEOPLE

Second Respondent

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (and others named in the Schedule)

Third Respondent

PRISCILLA GYEMORE (and others named in the Schedule)

First Intervener

JUDGE:

JAGOT J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 AUGUST 2017

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The amended application for leave to appeal filed 9 May 20147 be dismissed.

2.No order as to costs.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JAGOT J:

  1. There is before me today an application for leave to appeal from an order made by the primary judge on 11 April 2017dismissing an interlocutory application under s 66B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)(NTA) to replace the applicant.  That order was consequential upon his Honour’s reasons for judgment, Burragubba on behalf of the Wangan and Jagalingou People v State of Queensland [2017] FCA 373.

  2. There is no dispute about the relevant principles which regulate the making of the application for leave and its resolution. The applicant needs to…

Continue reading Kemppi v State of Queensland

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Kemppi v State of Queensland [2017] FCA 902
Case
[2017] FCA 902
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Kemppi, sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Federal Court of Australia, which had previously dismissed their claim for native title over certain land in Queensland. The State of Queensland opposed the application for leave to appeal. The central issue before the court was whether the decision of the primary judge contained sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration by the Full Court, and whether the applicant would suffer substantial injustice if leave to appeal were refused.

In evaluating the application, the court examined the arguments presented by Kemppi regarding the primary judge's determination. The court considered whether the decision was so palpably wrong or unjust that it ought to be reconsidered by a Full Court. Additionally, the court assessed whether denying leave to appeal would result in substantial injustice to Kemppi. The court found that the primary judge's decision did not contain sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration, and that Kemppi would not suffer substantial injustice if leave to appeal were refused. The court was satisfied that the primary judge had thoroughly considered the evidence and legal principles applicable to the case.

Consequently, the court dismissed the amended application for leave to appeal. The court concluded that there were no grounds to grant leave, as the decision of the primary judge was not palpably wrong or unjust, and denying leave would not cause substantial injustice to Kemppi. As such, the appeal was not permitted to proceed, and the decision of the primary judge remained undisturbed. The court made no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The amended application for leave to appeal filed 9 May 20147 be dismissed.

2. No order as to costs.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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

Full text does not contain this section.