FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
McGlade v Native Title Registrar (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 84
File numbers: WAD 137 of 2016
WAD 138 of 2016
WAD 139 of 2016
WAD 140 of 2016Judges: NORTH, BARKER AND MORTIMER JJ Date of judgment: 29 May 2017 Catchwords: COSTS – relief granted to applicants – whether applicants entitled to costs – whether second and third respondents jointly responsible for costs – s 85A of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) does not apply Legislation: Constitution s 75(v)
Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) s 43
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B(1)
Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 81, s 85A
Cases cited: Corunna v South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council (No 2) (2015) 235 FCR 53; [2015] FCA 630
McGlade v Native Title Registrar (2017) 340 ALR 419; [2017] FCAFC 10
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers Date of last submissions: 30 March 2017 Registry: Western Australia Division: General Division National Practice Area: Native Title Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 19 Counsel for the Applicants: Mr R Merkel QC with Ms S Gory Solicitor for the Applicants: Murfett Legal Counsel for the State of Western Australia: Mr PD Quinlan SC with Ms CI Taggart Solicitor for the State of Western Australia: State Solicitor’s Office Counsel for the Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents: Mr S Lloyd SC with Mr GJD Del Villar Solicitor for the Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents: Clayton Utz Lawyers ORDERS
WAD 137 of 2016 BETWEEN: MINGLI WANJURRI MCGLADE (FORMERLY WANJURRI-NUNGALA)
Applicant
AND: NATIVE TITLE REGISTRAR
First Respondent
STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (SUED ON ITS OWN BEHALF AND AS REPRESENTING THE GOVERNMENT PARTIES TO THE WAGYL KAIP & SOUTHERN NOONGAR INDIGENOUS LAND USE AGREEMENT)
Second Respondent
SOUTH WEST ABORIGINAL LAND & SEA COUNCIL ABORIGINAL CORPORATION [ICN 3832] (and others named in the Schedule)
Third Respondent
JUDGES:
NORTH, BARKER AND MORTIMER JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
29 MAY 2017
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicants in these four proceedings file a minute of proposed costs orders that reflect these reasons.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
WAD 138 of 2016 BETWEEN: MERVYN EADES
ApplicantAND: NATIVE TITLE REGISTRAR
First Respondent
STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (SUED ON ITS OWN BEHALF AND AS REPRESENTING THE GOVERNMENT PARTIES TO THE BALLARDON PEOPLE INDIGENOUS LAND USE AGREEMENT)
Second Respondent
SOUTH WEST ABORIGINAL LAND & SEA COUNCIL ABORIGINAL CORPORATION [ICN 3832] (and another named in the Schedule)
Third Respondent
JUDGES:
NORTH, BARKER AND MORTIMER JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
29 MAY 2017
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicants in these four proceedings file a minute of proposed costs orders that reflect these reasons.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
WAD 139 of 2016 BETWEEN: NAOMI SMITH
Applicant
AND: NATIVE TITLE REGISTRAR
First Respondent
STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (SUED ON ITS OWN BEHALF AND AS REPRESENTING THE GOVERNMENT PARTIES TO THE WHADJUK PEOPLE INDIGENOUS LAND…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read McGlade v Native Title Registrar (No 2) 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
- [2017] FCAFC 84
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues for the court to address were the entitlement of the applicants to the costs they sought and the potential joint responsibility of the second and third respondents for these costs. The applicants argued that they were entitled to the full costs they claimed, while the respondents contended that the applicants' entitlement to costs was limited, and that section 85A did not apply. The court needed to interpret the relevant provisions of the Native Title Act and determine the appropriate allocation of costs.
In delivering the judgment, the court carefully considered the relevant statutory provisions, the arguments presented by the parties, and the precedents. The court found that the applicants were entitled to the costs they sought, based on the provisions of the Native Title Act and the circumstances of the case. However, the court also determined that section 85A did not apply to the situation, and therefore the second and third respondents were not jointly responsible for the costs. The court's interpretation of the statute and the facts led to this conclusion, ensuring a just outcome for all parties involved.
The final orders included the applicants being granted the right to file a minute of proposed costs orders reflecting the court's reasons. The court's decision was guided by the Federal Court Rules 2011, which provide the framework for the entry of orders in such proceedings. This decision provides clarity on the entitlement to costs and the application of section 85A in similar cases under the Native Title Act.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The applicants in these four proceedings file a minute of proposed costs orders that reflect these reasons.
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.