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:
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.
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
- AGLC
- Kemppi v State of Queensland [2017] FCA 902
- Case
- [2017] FCA 902
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.