McLennan on behalf of the Jangga People #3 v State of Queensland

In the case of McLennan on behalf of the Jangga People #3 v State of Queensland, the court was required to determine whether the appellant could rely on a prior consent determination in relation to adjacent land and waters, made in a separate case (McLennan), to dispose of the inquiry required by s 223(1)(a) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). This was part of an appeal against an adverse determination regarding the existence of native title in relation to any land and waters of the claim area in partially overlapping claims. The appellant argued that the prior consent determination in the McLennan case made several findings that were relevant to the existence of native title, and thus should be binding on the court in the current case. The court had to decide whether these findings could be relied upon in the current case, and if so, under what circumstances.

The legal issues the court had to address included the scope of the in rem character of a prior consent determination, the status of findings made in such determinations where the facts and issues were not actually litigated and determined, and whether the appellant was entitled to rely on the findings or the material underpinning the necessary facts to support the prior determination. The court needed to determine if the prior determination could be considered a binding precedent in the current case and if the appellant could rely on the findings made in the McLennan case to establish the existence of native title in the current case.

The court found that the prior consent determination in the McLennan case was binding only in relation to the area subject to the determination. The court held that the determination was binding in rem only with respect to the area that was the subject of the determination. The court also held that the findings made in the McLennan case were not binding in the current case as they were not actually litigated and determined in the McLennan case. The court concluded that the appellant was not entitled to rely on the findings or the material underpinning the necessary facts to support the prior determination in the current case.

The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the appeals from the judgment in Malone v State of Queensland be dismissed. The court also granted liberty to apply within 14 days for any order as to costs, subject to certain conditions. The court's decision clarifies the scope of the in rem character of a prior consent determination and the circumstances in which findings made in such determinations can be relied upon in subsequent cases.