Saunders on behalf of the Bigambul People v State of Queensland (No 2)

The case of Saunders on behalf of the Bigambul People v State of Queensland (No 2) involved an application for the determination of compensation under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The applicant, Saunders, sought compensation for acts affecting native title rights and interests, but the original application failed to identify any compensable acts. The State of Queensland applied for a strike-out and to dismiss the application for leave to amend the original application. The applicant also sought relief under section 83A of the NTA, requesting that the Court make a request to the State Minister to conduct searches for information relevant to the application.

The court had to determine whether the application could be amended to include compensable acts, and if it could, whether such an amendment would comply with section 64(1) of the NTA. Additionally, the court needed to decide if the application complied with the requirements of section 61(5) of the NTA, particularly in terms of the information it contained and the boundaries of the area covered by the application. The court also needed to consider the applicant's request for relief under section 83A of the NTA.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the proper construction of the phrase "the area covered by the application" in the context of the NTA and the relevant schedules of Form 4. The court concluded that the applicant's proposed amendments would not comply with section 64(1) of the NTA because they would result in the inclusion of areas not covered by the original application. The court also found that the original application failed to identify any compensable acts, contrary to the requirements of Schedule I of Form 4. Furthermore, the application failed to contain information identifying the boundaries of the area covered by the application, contrary to Schedule B, and did not include a map of the area covered by the application, contrary to Schedule C. As a result, the court found that the application failed to comply with the requirements of section 61(5)(c) of the NTA and should be struck out. The court also dismissed the applicant's application for relief under section 83A of the NTA as it was deemed otiose.

ORDERS:
1. The applicant's interlocutory application filed on 12 June 2020 seeking leave to amend the application for a determination of compensation be dismissed.
2. The applicant's amended interlocutory application filed 19 June 2020 seeking that the Court make a request under s 83A of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) be dismissed.
3. The applicant’s application for a determination of compensation be struck out.
4. The respondents each file and serve any submissions as to costs (not exceeding five pages) by 4.30 pm on 18 March 2021.
5. The applicant file and serve any submissions as to costs (not exceeding five pages) by 4.30 pm on 25 March 2021.
6. The respondents each file and serve any submissions as to costs in reply (not exceeding one page) by 4.30 pm on 29 March 2021.
7. The question of costs will be determined on the papers.