The Lardil, Kaiadilt, Yangkaal and Gangalidda Peoples v State of Queensland

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
The Lardil, Kaiadilt, Yangkaal and Gangalidda Peoples v State of Queensland
[2001] FCA 464
THE LARDIL, KAIADILT, YANGKAAL and GANGALIDDA PEOPLES v STATE OF QUEENSLAND, COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, PASMINCO CENTURY MINE LTD ACN 006 670 300, M G KAILIS GULF FISHERIES PTY LTD ACN 007 856 395 AND OTHERS
Q 293 OF 1999
FRENCH, MERKEL, DOWSETT JJ
26 APRIL 2001
BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q 293 OF 1999

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

THE LARDIL, KAIADILT, YANGKAAL and GANGALIDDA PEOPLES
APPELLANTS

AND:

STATE OF QUEENSLAND
FIRST RESPONDENT

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
SECOND RESPONDENT

PASMINCO CENTURY MINE LTD ACN 006 670 300
THIRD RESPONDENT

M G KAILIS GULF FISHERIES PTY LTD ACN 007 856 395
AND OTHERS
FOURTH RESPONDENT TO ELEVENTH RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

FRENCH, MERKEL, DOWSETT JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

26 APRIL 2001

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.
2.The appellants pay the costs of the appeal of the first, second and third respondents, such costs to be to be taxed.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q 293 OF 1999

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

THE LARDIL, KAIADILT, YANGKAAL and GANGALIDDA PEOPLES
APPELLANTS

AND:

STATE OF QUEENSLAND
FIRST RESPONDENT

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
SECOND RESPONDENT

PASMINCO CENTURY MINE LTD ACN 006 670 300
THIRD RESPONDENT

MG KAILIS GULF FISHERIES PTY LTD ACN 007 856 395
AND OTHERS
FOURTH RESPONDENT TO ELEVENTH RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

FRENCH, MERKEL, DOWSETT JJ

DATE:

26 APRIL 2001

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:

When judgment in this matter was delivered the parties were invited to make further submissions as to the appeal against the order for costs made below and as to the costs of the appeal. The Court has now considered the submissions provided by the parties and is of the view that the proceedings before Cooper J were within the jurisdiction conferred by subs 213(2) of the Act and that s 85A does not apply for reasons previously given. The appellants’ submission that his Honour misdirected himself as to the law in observing that “There is no reason why costs should not follow the event” is therefore not able to be made out. That view was fairly open to his Honour, having considered all of the issues, and we see no basis for interfering in the order. The appeal should be dismissed.
As to the question of the costs of appeal, we are of the view that they, too, should follow the event. We have considered the submissions advanced by the appellants in favour of a contrary order. The first of these is that the application for, and grant of, the authority occurred without notice to them. While this may be so, we do not see that it justified the appellants in commencing proceedings which misconceived the nature of their position under the Native Title Act. As to the issues arising under State legislation, the fact that his Honour considered that it was not appropriate to determine those matters did not justify the appellants in continuing to urge them on appeal, given that they were without substance.
The first, second, third and eleventh respondents appeared on the hearing of the appeal. We do not understand the eleventh respondent to seek any order for costs. We order that the appellants pay the costs of the appeal of the first, second and third respondents, such costs to be taxed.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of The Court.

Associate:
Dated: 26 April 2001

Counsel for the Appellants:

Mr Basten QC

Solicitor for the Appellants:

Andrew Chalk Associates

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Mr Gibson QC

Mr McLeod

Solicitor for the First Respondent:

Crown Law

Counsel for the Second Respondent:

Mr Orr QC

Solicitor for the Second Respondent:

Australian Government Solicitor

Counsel for the Third Respondent:

Mr Fraser QC

Mr D O’Brien

Solicitor for the Third Respondent:

Blake Dawson Waldron

Counsel for the Eleventh Respondent:

Mr Hiley QC

Solicitor for the Eleventh Respondent:

Gore & Associates

Date of Hearing:

17 May 2000

Date of Judgment:

26 April 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Lardil, Kaiadilt, Yangkaal and Gangalidda Peoples v State of Queensland, the appellants sought to challenge the validity of certain legislative amendments which affected the recognition of their native title rights. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the legislative changes were valid and, if so, whether they constituted a breach of the appellants' rights under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The respondents, including the State of Queensland, argued that the legislative amendments were valid and did not breach the appellants' rights. The court was required to examine the interplay between state and federal legislation and the extent to which state laws could affect native title rights recognised under federal law.

The court first considered whether the legislative amendments were valid exercises of state legislative power. It was determined that the amendments were consistent with the constitutional framework and did not impermissibly encroach upon the federal legislative domain. The court then examined whether the legislative amendments breached the appellants' rights under the Native Title Act. It was held that the amendments did not extinguish or impair the appellants' native title rights, as the legislation was designed to provide a framework for the management of native title rather than to extinguish or diminish those rights. The court found that the amendments were consistent with the objectives of the Native Title Act and did not result in an unjustifiable impairment of the appellants' rights.

The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the appellants pay the costs of the appeal of the first, second and third respondents, such costs to be taxed. This decision underscores the complex interplay between state and federal laws in the context of native title and the importance of ensuring that legislative amendments are consistent with the broader legislative framework designed to protect and recognise native title rights.

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellants pay the costs of the appeal of the first, second and third respondents, such costs to be to be taxed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 293 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	THE LARDIL, KAIADILT, YANGKAAL and GANGALIDDA PEOPLES APPELLANTS
AND:	STATE OF QUEENSLAND FIRST RESPONDENT COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA SECOND RESPONDENT PASMINCO CENTURY MINE LTD ACN 006 670 300 THIRD RESPONDENT M G KAILIS GULF FISHERIES PTY LTD ACN 007 856 395 AND OTHERS FOURTH RESPONDENT TO ELEVENTH RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	FRENCH, MERKEL, DOWSETT JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	26 APRIL 2001
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

Counsel for the Appellants:	Mr Basten QC
Solicitor for the Appellants:	Andrew Chalk Associates
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Mr Gibson QC Mr McLeod
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Crown Law
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	Mr Orr QC
Solicitor for the Second Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the Third Respondent:	Mr Fraser QC Mr D O’Brien
Solicitor for the Third Respondent:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Counsel for the Eleventh Respondent:	Mr Hiley QC
Solicitor for the Eleventh Respondent:	Gore & Associates
Date of Hearing:	17 May 2000
Date of Judgment:	26 April 2001