Murphy v State of Queensland

In the matter of Murphy v State of Queensland, the applicants, Mr Raymond Murphy and Mr John Doe, sought a determination under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) that native title does not exist over certain leased land. The respondents, the State of Queensland, did not contest the power of the Court to make such a determination or the appropriateness of the orders sought. Instead, the primary issue was whether the applicants had substantiated their case that no native title exists over the specified land. The applicants relied on various factors, including the absence of any native title claims or assertions over the land, the history of prior claims and their withdrawal, and the lack of any Aboriginal presence or connection to the land during the applicants' occupation.

The Court, in considering the matter, referred to the principles established in Mace v State of Queensland, where the Full Court of the Federal Court outlined the approach to non-claimant applications for a determination of native title. The Court noted that each case must be assessed on its own particular facts, and the onus of proof lies with the non-claimant applicant to demonstrate that no native title exists on the balance of probabilities. The Court must weigh the evidence presented, whether direct or indirect, and consider the nature of the land, the tenure involved, and any relevant claims or assertions of native title. The Court emphasised that a negative determination involves the gravity of affecting property rights and native title interests, and thus requires a rigorous standard of proof.

After reviewing the evidence provided by the applicants, including affidavits and tenure searches, the Court found that the applicants had discharged their burden of proof. The Court determined that there was no native title over the specified land, and made the corresponding orders in line with the applicants' request. The Court's decision underscored the importance of assessing each non-claimant application on its individual merits and the necessity for a robust evidentiary basis to support a negative determination of native title.