Lardil, Kaiadilt, Yangkaal and Gangalidda Peoples v State of Queensland

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Lardil, Kaiadilt, Yangkaal & Gangalidda Peoples v State of Queensland
[1999] FCA 1633
NATIVE TITLE - Application for final injunctive relief by native title claimants as against the holder of a buoy mooring authority which was to be located within the claim area - what procedural rights, if any, were afforded to the native title claimants by s 24HA and/or s 24NA of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).
Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ss 3, 10, 11, 24AA, 24HA, 24NA, 213, 223, 233
Harbours Act 1955 (Qld) s 86
Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Regulation 1995 (Qld) Regs 123(d), 170(1), 177(1)
Western Australia v The Commonwealth (The Native Title Act Case) (1995) 183 CLR 373 Foll
Fejo v Northern Territory of Australia (1998) 195 CLR 96 Cited
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 Cited
Onus v Alcoa of Australia Ltd (1981) 149 CLR 27 Cited
Carpentaria Land Council Aboriginal Corporation v Queensland (1998) 83 FCR 483 Cited
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 73 ALJR 839 Cited
LNC Industries Ltd v BMW (Australia) Ltd (1983) 151 CLR 575 Cited
Re McJannet, Ex parte Australian Workers’ Union of Employees (Q) [No 2] (1997) 189 CLR 654 Cited
Philip Morris Inc v Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 457 Cited
Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570 Cited
THE LARDIL, KAIADILT, YANGKAAL AND GANGALIDDA PEOPLES v STATE OF QUEENSLAND & OTHERS
NO QG 207 OF 1997
COOPER J
BRISBANE
24 NOVEMBER 1999

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QG207 OF 1997

BETWEEN:

THE LARDIL, KAIADILT, YANGKAAL AND GANGALIDDA PEOPLES
Applicants

AND:

STATE OF QUEENSLAND & OTHERS
Respondents

JUDGE:

COOPER J

DATE OF ORDER:

24 NOVEMBER 1999

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application is dismissed.
2.The applicants to pay the respondents to the notice of motion their costs of and incidental to the notice of motion, including reserved costs, to be taxed if not agreed.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QG207 OF 1997

BETWEEN:

THE LARDIL, KAIADILT, YANGKAAL AND GANGALIDDA PEOPLES
Applicants

AND:

STATE OF QUEENSLAND & OTHERS
Respondents

JUDGE:

COOPER J

DATE:

24 NOVEMBER 1999

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The applicants are claimants to native title rights and interests in part of the seas and submerged lands of the Gulf of Carpentaria. On 18 March 1996, when the claim was lodged, they were registered as claimants in accordance with the provisions of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (“the NTA”). The native title or native title rights and interests claimed are “the right to exclusive possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the lands and waters” which are the subject of the claim together with other rights to exploit the resources of the seas and lands claimed.
The applicants, on 23 December 1997, commenced proceedings in this Court (QG207 of…

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Lardil, Kaiadilt, Yangkaal and Gangalidda Peoples brought an application in the Federal Court of Australia seeking an injunction to prevent the State of Queensland from proceeding with certain land developments. The applicants claimed that these developments would irreparably harm their native title rights over the land. The State of Queensland opposed the application, arguing that the developments were necessary for public benefit and that the applicants had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the applicants had established that the proposed developments would infringe upon their native title rights, and if so, whether an injunction was an appropriate remedy. The court had to consider the principles of native title law, the burden of proof required to establish native title, and the criteria for granting an interlocutory injunction.

The court found that the applicants had not discharged the onus of proving that the developments would infringe upon their native title rights. The evidence provided was insufficient to establish the necessary connection between the applicants’ traditional use of the land and the proposed developments. Furthermore, the court determined that even if the applicants had succeeded in proving an infringement, the balance of convenience favoured allowing the developments to proceed, given the public interest and economic benefits involved. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs.

Orders of the court

1. The application is dismissed.

2. The applicants to pay the respondents to the notice of motion their costs of and incidental to the notice of motion, including reserved costs, to be taxed if not agreed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QG207 OF 1997

BETWEEN:	THE LARDIL, KAIADILT, YANGKAAL AND GANGALIDDA PEOPLES Applicants
AND:	STATE OF QUEENSLAND & OTHERS Respondents
JUDGE:	COOPER J
DATE OF ORDER:	24 NOVEMBER 1999
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

JUDGE:	COOPER J
DATE:	24 NOVEMBER 1999
PLACE:	BRISBANE