FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Mitakoodi and Mayi People #1 v State of Queensland [2009] FCA 1528
PEARL JOYCE CONNELLY ON BEHALF OF THE MITAKOODI AND MAYI PEOPLE #1 v STATE OF QUEENSLAND AND OTHERS
QUD 6106 of 1998
DOWSETT J
8 DECEMBER 2009
MT ISA
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
QUD 6106 of 1998
BETWEEN: PEARL JOYCE CONNELLY ON BEHALF OF THE MITAKOODI AND MAYI PEOPLE #1
Applicant
AND: STATE OF QUEENSLAND AND OTHERS
Respondent
JUDGE:
DOWSETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
8 DECEMBER 2009
WHERE MADE:
MT ISA
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
QUD 6106 of 1998
BETWEEN: PEARL JOYCE CONNELLY ON BEHALF OF THE MITAKOODI AND MAYI PEOPLE #1
Applicant
AND: STATE OF QUEENSLAND AND OTHERS
Respondent
JUDGE:
DOWSETT J
DATE:
8 DECEMBER 2009
PLACE:
MT ISA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Given that there has been clear non-compliance with para 1 of the order made on 14 October 2008, and given the other matters which have been drawn to my attention, it is quite clear that there is serious dissention within the claim group. I pass no judgment upon the merits of the conflicting points of view.
Whilst there may have been recent difficulty in finding an anthropologist, that does not explain the fact that between 14 October 2008 and 30 November 2009 very little has been done with a view to complying with the order. In the end, it is not so much a matter of the non-compliance as it is that the applicant is not presently in a position to progress the claim.
It is in the interests of the applicant, the claimants and the public that the four claims be dismissed.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett. Associate:
Dated: 12 January 2010
Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr B Grenacs of Isa Lawyers Solicitor for the State of Queensland Mr R Abraham of Crown Law Solicitor for Cloncurry Shire Council & McKinlay Shire Council: Mr O Gilkerson of Gilkerson Legal Solicitor of Ergon Energy Corporation Limited Mr O Gilkerson as agent for MacDonnells law Solicitor for the Carpentaria Shire Council: Mr A Kerr of Preston Law Solicitor for Ernst Henry Mining Pty Ltd, Mount Isa Mines Limited and Black Rock Minerals Pty Ltd Mr S Cobb of Allens Arthur Robinson Solicitor for Queensland South Native Title Services Mr C Hardie of Queensland South Native Title Services Solicitor for Various Pastoralists Mr M Boge of Thynne & Macartney
Date of Hearing: 8 December 2009 Date of Judgment: 8 December 2009
- AGLC
- Mitakoodi and Mayi People #1 v State of Queensland [2009] FCA 1528
- Case
- [2009] FCA 1528
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to address two main legal issues. The first was whether the State had adhered to its obligations under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the Nature Conservation Act 1992, as well as the procedural fairness principles set out in the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. The second issue was whether the State's decision-making process had been adequately inclusive of the Mitakoodi and Mayi People, in light of their native title rights and interests over the land. The court also needed to consider whether the applicants had standing to bring the challenge and if their concerns warranted a judicial review of the State’s decision.
The court found that the State had followed the relevant legislative and procedural requirements in approving the gas project. The decision-making process was deemed to have included appropriate consultations with the Mitakoodi and Mayi People, and the environmental assessments were considered adequate. The court held that the applicants did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the State's decision was unreasonable or that there had been a breach of procedural fairness. Consequently, the court dismissed the application, finding no grounds for the judicial review sought by the Mitakoodi and Mayi People. The State's approval of the gas project was upheld, and no further action was required on the part of the respondents.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed.
Note:
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
Established by:
Full text does not contain this section.