Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships

Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd applied for judicial review of a decision by the Chief Executive of the Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships, who refused to approve the applicant’s cultural heritage management plan. The applicant was developing a residential subdivision project and had developed a cultural heritage management plan in accordance with the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld). The applicant identified an Aboriginal party and an Aboriginal cultural heritage body for the area. The Aboriginal party, who was endorsed by the applicant to take part in developing the cultural heritage management plan, was no longer a registered native title claimant and no longer an Aboriginal party at the time of the decision. The applicant submitted the cultural heritage management plan to the respondent for approval. The respondent refused to approve the plan on the grounds that the Aboriginal party could no longer be regarded as an endorsed party and also could not be approved under another provision of the Act. The applicant sought judicial review of the decision, arguing that it involved a number of errors of law.

The court had to decide whether the respondent erred in law by refusing to approve the applicant’s cultural heritage management plan and whether the decision should be quashed or set aside. The court also had to consider whether the respondent should be required to approve the applicant’s cultural heritage management plan. The court found that the respondent erred in law by failing to consider all of the evidence before it and by not giving appropriate weight to the evidence. The court held that the respondent’s decision should be quashed and set aside, and the matter referred back to the respondent with a direction that the respondent must approve the applicant’s cultural heritage management plan.

The court found that the respondent had failed to properly consider the evidence and had not given appropriate weight to the evidence. The court held that the respondent had not considered the fact that the Aboriginal party had been endorsed by the applicant to take part in developing the cultural heritage management plan. The court held that the respondent had not given appropriate weight to the evidence that the Aboriginal party had been endorsed by the applicant and that the applicant had developed the cultural heritage management plan in accordance with the Act. The court held that the respondent’s decision should be quashed and set aside, and the matter referred back to the respondent with a direction that the respondent must approve the applicant’s cultural heritage management plan.

The orders of the Court were that the respondent’s decision of 30 October 2017 refusing to approve the applicant’s cultural heritage management plan is set aside and the matter to which the decision relates is referred back to the respondent with a direction that the respondent must approve the applicant’s cultural heritage management plan pursuant to s 107(3) of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld).