Prow v State of Queensland

Link copied
Case Copied 13 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Prow v State of Queensland [2021] FCA 1532  

File number(s): QUD 7 of 2021
Judgment of: SC DERRINGTON J
Date of judgment: 8 December 2021
Catchwords:  NATIVE TITLE – non-claimant application for determination of native title under s 61(1) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (‘NTA’) – determination sought under s 86G of the NTA that no native title exists over the determination area – whether within power and appropriate to make the orders sought – order made in the terms sought
Legislation: Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ss 13, 61, 66, 81, 86G, 225
Cases cited:

Awabakal Local Aboriginal Land Council v Attorney-General of New South Wales [2020] FCA 1507

CG (Deceased) on behalf of the Badimia People v State of Western Australia [2016] FCAFC 67; (2016) 240 FCR 466

Mace v State of Queensland [2019] FCAFC 233; (2019) 375 ALR 717

McKellar on behalf of the Budjiti People v State of Queensland [2015] FCA 601

Mudgee Local Aboriginal Land Council v Attorney-General of New South Wales [2013] FCA 668

Murphy v State of Queensland [2021] FCA 81

Wagonga Local Aboriginal Land Council v Attorney General of New South Wales [2020] FCA 1113

WG & DK Ryan Pty Ltd (Trustee) v State of Queensland [2021] FCA 499

Worimi v Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Council [2010] FCAFC 3; (2010) 181 FCR 320

Wyman on behalf of the Bidjara People v State of Queensland (No 2) [2013] FCA 1229
Division: General Division
Registry: Queensland
National Practice Area: Native Title
Number of paragraphs: 29
Date of hearing: 6 December 2021
Solicitor for the Applicant: McCullough Robertson
Solicitor for the Respondent: Crown Law

 

ORDERS

QUD 7 of 2021
BETWEEN:

TONI-ANN MAREE PROW (and others named in the Schedule)

Applicant
AND:

STATE OF QUEENSLAND

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

SC DERRINGTON J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 DECEMBER 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.There is no native title in relation to the land and waters that are described as Lot 10 on Crown Plan PO65, title reference 17664208 in the State of Queensland.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SC DERRINGTON J:

INTRODUCTION

  1. This is an application made pursuant to s 13(1) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA) for a determination of native title under s 61(1) of the NTA filed by the applicants, Toni-Ann Maree Prow, William Walter Kevin Prow, Charles William Prow and Gail Margaret Prow. The applicant seeks a determination that native title does not exist in relation to Lot 10 on Crown Plan PO65, located in Cooladdi in the Murweh local government area in Queensland (the Land). The applicants are the registered lessee of the Land.

  2. The State of Queensland is the only respondent to the application. There was no appearance by any other party. The State of Queensland has indicated by way of a notice under s 86G of the NTA

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Prow v State of Queensland and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2021] FCA 1532
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Prow v State of Queensland was a case before the Federal Court of Australia, which involved a non-claimant application for a determination of native title under section 61(1) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The applicant sought a determination under section 86G of the NTA that no native title existed over the determination area. The central issue before the court was whether it was within the court's power and appropriate to make the orders sought by the applicant, specifically to determine that no native title existed over the specified land.

The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by the applicant to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that native title did not exist over the land in question. The court considered the statutory framework, relevant case law, and the specific circumstances of the case to determine if the applicant had discharged the required onus of proof. After reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that the applicant had successfully demonstrated that native title did not exist over the land.

The court found it appropriate to make the order sought by the applicant, determining that no native title existed over the specified land. The court’s reasoning was grounded in the statutory provisions and the evidence presented. The court was satisfied that the applicant had met the necessary threshold of proof. Consequently, the court ordered that there is no native title in relation to the land and waters described as Lot 10 on Crown Plan PO65, title reference 17664208 in the State of Queensland. The entry of this order was in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. There is no native title in relation to the land and waters that are described as Lot 10 on Crown Plan PO65, title reference 17664208 in the State of Queensland.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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

In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the applicants have discharged their onus of establishing, on the balance of probabilities, that native title does not exist over the Land.CONCLUSION The appropriate order is that native title does not exist over the Land.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.