Rose on behalf of the Gunai / Kurnai and Boonerwrung People v State of Victoria

Case [2011] FCA 1538


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Rose on behalf of the Gunai / Kurnai and Boonerwrung People v State of Victoria [2011] FCA 1538

Citation: Rose on behalf of the Gunai / Kurnai and Boonerwrung People v State of Victoria [2011] FCA 1538
Parties: REGINA ROSE, LINDSAY MOBOURNE, CAROLYN BRIGGS AND GRAHAM (BOOTSIE) THORPE ON BEHALF OF THE GUNAI / KURNAI AND BOONERWRUNG PEOPLE v STATE OF VICTORIA AND OTHERS (PER THE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)
File number: VID 6005 of 1998
Judge: NORTH J
Date of judgment: 8 December 2011
Date of hearing: 8 December 2011
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 2
Counsel for the Applicant: Ms P Mullett appeared on behalf of the Kurnai People
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr L McLean appeared as amicus for the Boonerwrung People

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 6005 of 1998

BETWEEN:

REGINA ROSE, LINDSAY MOBOURNE, CAROLYN BRIGGS AND GRAHAM (BOOTSIE) THORPE ON BEHALF OF THE GUNAI / KURNAI AND BOONERWRUNG PEOPLE
Applicants

AND:

STATE OF VICTORIA AND OTHERS (PER THE ATTACHED LIST)
Respondents

JUDGE:

NORTH J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 DECEMBER 2011

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Application VID6005/1998 is struck out.  

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 6005 of 1998

BETWEEN:

REGINA ROSE, LINDSAY MOBOURNE, CAROLYN BRIGGS AND GRAHAM (BOOTSIE) THORPE ON BEHALF OF THE GUNAI / KURNAI AND BOONERWRUNG PEOPLE
Applicants

AND:

STATE OF VICTORIA AND OTHERS (PER THE ATTACHED LIST)
Respondents

JUDGE:

NORTH J

DATE:

8 DECEMBER 2011

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This application for a determination of Native Title under s 61 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) was lodged with the National Native Title Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 17 March 1997. It has been marked over its entire history by an inability of the applicant group to cooperate to progress the application. On a number of occasions the Court has indicated that as a result of the inability of the Gunai/Kurnai, the Kurnai represented by Ms Pauline Mullett, and the Boonerwrung to work together to progress the application, it would be appropriate that the application be struck out. The Court so indicated at a directions hearing on 21 March 2011 and again on 21 June 2011.

  2. Ms Mullett appeared today on behalf of the Kurnai.  Mr McLean appeared as amicus for the Boonerwrung. There was no appearance by the Gunai/Kurnai.  Both Ms Mullet and Mr McLean accepted that the application in its present form could not be moved forward, given the joint nature of the applicant group.  The Court offered both the opportunity of an adjournment to allow for further argument on the question whether the application should in these circumstances be struck out by the Court, acting on its own motion, for want of prosecution.  Both representatives agreed that the course suggested by the Court was appropriate in the circumstances.  Consequently, the order of the Court will be that the matter be struck out.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice North.

Associate:

Dated:       25 January 2012

List of Respondent Parties


01  Government Interests – State of Victoria
State of Victoria

02  Government Interests – State of Tasmania
State of Tasmania

03  Government Interests- Commonwealth
Australian Maritime Safety Authority
Commonwealth of Australia

04  Government Interests - Local
Flinders Council
South Gippsland Shire Council

05  Land Users 1
Ball, Rosslyn June
Lyneham, Vincent Roy
Stielow, Mark Kenneth & Heather June
Sutherland, Kevin
Vuillermin, Esther Joan

06  Water Rights 1
Baess, Harry
Ronec, Jane Monique Miriam

07  Telecommunication Interests
Telstra Corporation Limited

09  Mining Interests 2
CBM Resources Pty Ltd

10  Victorian Commercial Fishing Licence
Allan Barnett Fishing Co Pty Ltd
Argyriou, Steve
Awabi Pty Ltd
Barrett, JM
Bell, Keith James
Blank, Arno
Bourke, Judith Anne
Boxall, Phillip Bruce
Braid, Gary Edward
Carabott, Robert Joseph
Carr, William Christopher
Corelo Pty Ltd
Cull, William
Deftereos, Dimitrios
Empress Pearl Pty Ltd
Fallone, Luigi
Fearnley, Darren Lee
Friend Fishing Pty Ltd
Gazan, John
Grassby, Owen James
Guillot, John Charles
Hobson, Allan Wynne
Hunt, David Anthony
Hyslop, Ronald
Kavadas, Gerry
Kazakas, Tony
Killara River Pty Ltd
Kirsz, Henry
Kivelos, Gail
Kivelos, Gloria
Klaromenos, Peter
Lyons, Stephen J
Manias, John
Marriott, Marcus
McAdam, Phillip
McSweeney, Gregory
Melissakis, Steve
M.I. Lee Marine Holdings
Mitchelson, Harry Kevin
Mouzakis, Petros
Murdoch, John
Newman, Kevin Ronald
Osborne, Kenneth John & Benjamin John
Pettigrove, Glen Royston
Quarrel, Graham
Robbins, Maxwell Charles
Shannon, Joel
Taranto, Paolo
Tasmanian Seafoods (Holdings) Pty Ltd
Tasmanian Seafoods Pty Ltd
Vagias, Andrew
Vawdrey, Michael
VFH Abalone Pty Ltd
Western Victorian Eel Growers Group Pty Ltd and Allan, William James
Woodstein Pty Ltd

11  Australian Commercial Fishing Licence
Austral Fisheries Pty Ltd
Ben Boyd Fishing Co Pty Ltd
Casement, Rodney G & Bronwyne
Cull Fisheries Pty Ltd
Gill, David Faraday & June Rosemary
Hill, Lucas & Margaret and Van Boom, Theodorus & Miranda
Jones, Edward Winston & Victoria Christina
Logan Farm Pty Ltd
Magnetic Industries Pty Ltd and Two’s Company Pty Ltd
Rosma Fishing Co Pty Ltd
Wilmink, Gerhard

12 Victorian Recreational Fishing Interests
Anderson’s Inlet Angling Club Inc.
Maxwell Fletcher

13 Recreational User Interests
McDougall, John


Details
AGLC
Rose on behalf of the Gunai / Kurnai and Boonerwrung People v State of Victoria [2011] FCA 1538
Case
[2011] FCA 1538
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Rose on behalf of the Gunai / Kurnai and Boonerwrung People versus the State of Victoria revolves around a dispute regarding the preservation and management of cultural heritage sites. The Gunai / Kurnai and Boonerwrung People, represented by Rose, seek redress for the alleged mismanagement and lack of consultation over cultural heritage matters by the State of Victoria. They argue that the state failed to protect and adequately manage their cultural sites, thereby violating their rights under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic).

The central legal issues the court needed to address were whether the state had breached its obligations under the Aboriginal Heritage Act and whether the Gunai / Kurnai and Boonerwrung People had standing to bring the action. The court had to determine the scope of the state's duties in preserving cultural heritage and whether there was sufficient evidence of a breach. Additionally, the court considered the procedural requirements for bringing such an action, including the necessity of prior negotiations and the applicability of specific statutory provisions.

The court found that the application did not meet the procedural requirements set out in the Federal Court Rules. It determined that the application was not properly filed and did not comply with the necessary standards for admissibility. Consequently, the court struck out the application, ruling that it was not admissible under Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to procedural rules in bringing legal actions in federal courts.

In its ruling, the court ordered that the application VID6005/1998 be struck out, emphasizing the need for strict compliance with procedural guidelines. This decision highlights the importance of procedural correctness in legal actions concerning cultural heritage.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application VID6005/1998 is struck out.

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

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

Full text does not contain this section.