Pate v State of Queensland

The case of Pate v State of Queensland involved a non-claimant application by Ms Pate seeking a negative determination of native title over her pastoral lease in Queensland under section 61(1) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The application was opposed by the State of Queensland. The Federal Court had to determine whether the application could be granted on the basis of satisfying the formal requirements of the Native Title Act alone, or whether Ms Pate needed to provide additional evidence to discharge her onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that no native title existed over the land.

The key legal issues were the principles relevant to the exercise of the Court’s discretion to make a negative native title determination, the nature of section 24FA protection, and the difficulties associated with section 42 of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW). The Court also considered whether negative native title determinations could be granted solely on the basis of satisfying the formal requirements of the Native Title Act, and the onus of the non-claimant applicant to provide sufficient evidence to discharge their onus.

The Court found that the peculiar circumstance affecting previous non-claimant applications in New South Wales did not apply in this case. Ms Pate was not an Aboriginal Land Council and was not forced to make the application under Queensland State legislation. The Court emphasised the need for a sophisticated approach focusing on the statutory language and the particular facts and circumstances of each case. While Ms Pate had complied with the formal requirements for section 24FA protection, she had not provided sufficient additional evidence to discharge her onus of proving that no native title existed over her land. The Court dismissed the application.

In conclusion, the Court held that it was not appropriate to exercise its discretion to make the negative native title determination sought by Ms Pate. The Court found that Ms Pate had not provided sufficient evidence beyond compliance with the formal requirements of the Native Title Act to discharge her onus of proving that no native title existed over her land. The amended non-claimant application was dismissed.