FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Malone v B &M Aboriginal Corporation (in Administration) [2024] FCA 270
Appeal from: Application for Stay of Orders: QGC Pty Limited v Alberts (No 5) [2024] FCA 139 File number: QUD 143 of 2024 Judgment of: LOGAN J Date of judgment: 18 March 2024 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where the applicants seek a stay of the orders of the primary judge pending the determination of an application for leave to appeal and, thereafter, an appeal – where the controversy involves monies paid into Court relating to an Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) – where the primary judge made orders directing the payment of the monies to an interested party – where there is a dispute concerning the application of the terms of the ILUA and whether the intended recipient of the funds is so entitled – where the intended recipient is in administration and a significant portion of the funds would be imminently consumed by the administrator’s costs – whether the balance of convenience favoured a stay of the orders of the primary judge – stay granted Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 439A
Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 85A
Cases cited: Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685
Conlon v QGC Pty Limited (No 2) (2017) 359 ALR 460
QGC Ltd v Alberts [2020] FCA 1869
QGC Ltd v Alberts (No 2) [2021] FCA 540
QGC Ltd v Alberts (No 3) (2022) 404 ALR 493
QGC Ltd v Alberts (No 4) [2022] FCA 1590
QGC Pty Limited v Alberts(No 5) [2024] FCA 139
Sigma Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wyeth (No 2) (2010) 88 IPR 633
TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd v Antoniadis (No 2) (1999) 48 NSWLR 381
Division: General Division Registry: Queensland National Practice Area: Native Title Number of paragraphs: 40 Date of hearing: 18 March 2024 Counsel for the Applicants: Mr P Trout Solicitor for the Applicants: Trevor Huff Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Mr B Kidston Solicitor for the Respondent: Piper Alderman ORDERS
QUD 143 of 2024 BETWEEN: CHRISTINE MALONE
First Applicant
DOROTHY DAYLIGHT
Second Applicant
MARGARET HORNAGOLD (and others named in the Schedule)
Third Applicant
AND: B &M ABORIGINAL CORPORATION (IN ADMINISTRATION) (ICN9678)
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
LOGAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
18 MARCH 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The notice of appeal attached to the application for leave to appeal filed on 14 March 2024 be deemed to be a notice of appeal with any requirement for filing and service of the same being dispensed with.
2.Any appeal so instituted be heard together with the application for leave to appeal with submissions in respect of leave being treated as submissions on a substantive appeal, to the end that, if leave be required and granted, any consequential appeal be determined instanter.
3.The operation of orders 2, 3 and 5 of the orders made by the Court on 26 February 2024 be stayed until the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Malone v B &M Aboriginal Corporation (in Administration) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2024] FCA 270
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the nature of the dispute and the potential consequences of allowing or denying the stay. The applicants argued that without a stay, the funds would be depleted, leaving insufficient resources to cover the costs of the intended recipient, who was in administration. The court examined the risk of substantial prejudice to the applicants if the stay was not granted, weighed against the potential prejudice to the intended recipient if the stay was granted. The court found that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, as the risk of significant financial prejudice to the applicants outweighed the potential harm to the intended recipient. The court noted that the intended recipient was in administration and that the funds would soon be consumed by administrative costs, which further supported the grant of a stay.
In light of the arguments presented and the considerations outlined, the court granted the stay of the primary judge's orders pending the determination of the application for leave to appeal. The court deemed the notice of appeal attached to the application as a valid notice of appeal, dispensing with the requirement for separate filing and service of the notice. The appeal and application for leave were to be heard together, with submissions on leave treated as submissions on the substantive appeal. The court also stayed the operation of certain orders made by the primary judge until the hearing and determination of the appeal or further order. The costs were reserved, and liberty to apply was granted.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The notice of appeal attached to the application for leave to appeal filed on 14 March 2024 be deemed to be a notice of appeal with any requirement for filing and service of the same being dispensed with.
2. Any appeal so instituted be heard together with the application for leave to appeal with submissions in respect of leave being treated as submissions on a substantive appeal, to the end that, if leave be required and granted, any consequential appeal be determined instanter.
3. The operation of orders 2, 3 and 5 of the orders made by the Court on 26 February 2024 be stayed until the hearing and determination of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal or further earlier order.
4. Costs be reserved.
5. Liberty to apply.
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.