Ross on behalf of the Cape York United #1 Claim Group v State of Queensland (No 26) (Kowanyama People #2 determination)
Case
•
[2024] FCA 742
•11 July 2024
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Ross on behalf of the Cape York United #1 Claim Group v State of Queensland (No 26) (Kowanyama People #2 determination) [2024] FCA 742
[2024] FCA 742
11 July 2024
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case involves Ross on behalf of the Cape York United #1 Claim Group as the applicant and the State of Queensland as the respondent, proceeding under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The matter pertains to the determination of native title for the Kowanyama People in the Kowanyama People #2 determination. The central issues included the appropriateness of the State of Queensland as a respondent in proceedings under sections 84(4) and 87A(1)(c) of the Act and the nomination of a prescribed body corporate for the native title.
The Court found that despite the literal wording of section 84(4) of the Native Title Act, the State of Queensland could validly be named as a respondent. This decision was based on the reasoning that there was no irregularity or unlawfulness in doing so, and it was in line with the broader objectives of the Act to facilitate resolution of native title claims. The Court also addressed the nomination of the Kowanyama People, Kunjen Olkol and Olkola Aboriginal Corporation as the prescribed body corporate, highlighting its role in performing functions related to the native title as per section 57 of the Act.
The Court's determination recognises the existence of native title for the Kowanyama People over the specified area, outlines the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests, and clarifies the relationship between these rights and other existing interests in the area. It also specifies that the native title is not to be held on trust and designates the Kowanyama People, Kunjen Olkol and Olkola Aboriginal Corporation as the prescribed body corporate for the native title.
The Court orders that the native title determination be established as outlined, and each party is to bear its own costs. The determination also includes detailed descriptions of the native title holders, the determination area, and the nature and extent of other interests in the area, all of which are set out in the schedules attached to the decision.
The Court found that despite the literal wording of section 84(4) of the Native Title Act, the State of Queensland could validly be named as a respondent. This decision was based on the reasoning that there was no irregularity or unlawfulness in doing so, and it was in line with the broader objectives of the Act to facilitate resolution of native title claims. The Court also addressed the nomination of the Kowanyama People, Kunjen Olkol and Olkola Aboriginal Corporation as the prescribed body corporate, highlighting its role in performing functions related to the native title as per section 57 of the Act.
The Court's determination recognises the existence of native title for the Kowanyama People over the specified area, outlines the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests, and clarifies the relationship between these rights and other existing interests in the area. It also specifies that the native title is not to be held on trust and designates the Kowanyama People, Kunjen Olkol and Olkola Aboriginal Corporation as the prescribed body corporate for the native title.
The Court orders that the native title determination be established as outlined, and each party is to bear its own costs. The determination also includes detailed descriptions of the native title holders, the determination area, and the nature and extent of other interests in the area, all of which are set out in the schedules attached to the decision.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Indigenous Peoples & Native Title Law
Legal Concepts
-
Native Title
-
Prescribed Body Corporate
-
Traditional Laws and Customs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Ross on behalf of the Cape York United #1 Claim Group v State of Queensland (No 27) (Kowanyama People #3 identified parcels determination) [2024] FCA 743
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Harris v State Minister for the State of Queensland
[2024] FCA 1059
Harris v State Minister for the State of Queensland
[2024] FCA 1059
Cases Cited
10
Statutory Material Cited
1
Kowanyama People v State of Queensland
[2009] FCA 1192
Daphney on behalf of the Kowanyama People v State of Queensland
[2014] FCA 1149