Little on behalf of the Djaku:nde People v State of Queensland

The case of Little on behalf of the Djaku:nde People v State of Queensland involved a native title dispute where the Djaku:nde People sought recognition of their native title rights. The State of Queensland and other respondents challenged the claim and filed applications for summary dismissal before the native title claim passed the registration test. The claim was subsequently rejected by the Native Title Registrar for failing to meet certain requirements under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The Djaku:nde People then requested the dismissal of the proceedings before the applications for dismissal were heard. The respondents applied for costs against the Djaku:nde People’s solicitor and the Djaku:nde People themselves on an indemnity basis, arguing that they acted unreasonably in the institution or conduct of the proceedings.

The court examined whether the Djaku:nde People or their solicitor acted unreasonably, warranting an award of costs. The court found that the costs incurred by the respondents in filing the applications for dismissal were premature, as the Native Title Registrar had not yet made an adverse registration test decision. The court emphasised the benefit of the registration test in preventing unnecessary litigation by allowing the applicant to reconsider their claim. By requesting the dismissal of the proceedings, the Djaku:nde People effectively brought the proceedings to an end as soon as reasonably possible. The court considered the solicitor’s conduct reasonable and found no departure from the expectation under section 85A of the Native Title Act that each party bear its own costs.

The court dismissed the applications for costs by the respondents, finding no basis for awarding costs against the Djaku:nde People or their solicitor. The court held that the premature filing of the applications for dismissal did not justify an award of costs against the Djaku:nde People, and the solicitor's conduct was reasonable in bringing the proceedings to a close. Consequently, the court made no order as to costs in respect of the proceedings, including the applications for costs.